{"id":24714,"date":"2012-06-24T22:28:26","date_gmt":"2012-06-25T02:28:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=24714"},"modified":"2012-06-24T22:28:26","modified_gmt":"2012-06-25T02:28:26","slug":"a-thought-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2012\/06\/24\/a-thought-2\/","title":{"rendered":"a thought…"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n
\n
Three professional organization responses to third and final DSM-5 stakeholder review<\/font><\/a><\/strong><\/u>
dxrevisionwatch<\/font><\/strong>
by Suzy Chapman
June 21, 2012<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

No publication of field trial data<\/strong><\/p>\n

Following posting of the third draft on May 2, it was anticipated APA would publish full results from the DSM-5<\/em> field trials “within a month”<\/em>. [Source: Deborah Brauser for Medscape Medical News: interview with Darrel Regier, May 8, 2012<\/a><\/strong><\/u>.]<\/em><\/p>\n

No report emerged and stakeholders had little choice but submit feedback on this latest iteration without the benefit of scrutiny of reliability data to inform their submissions. APA has yet to account for its failure to place its field trial results in the public domain while the feedback exercise was in progress, other than releasing some Kappa data at its May 5-9 Annual Conference.<\/p>\n

American Psychiatric Association CEO and Medical Director, James H. Scully, Jr., M.D., blogs at Huffington Post<\/a><\/strong><\/u>. Last week, I asked Dr Scully why the field trial report has been withheld; whether Task Force still intends publishing field trial data and when that report might now be anticipated. I’ve received no response from Dr Scully and APA has put out no clarification…<\/sup><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n
DSM-5 Field Trials Generate Mixed Results<\/font><\/strong><\/u><\/a>
Medscape<\/font><\/strong>
by Deborah Brauser
May 8, 2012<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

Members of the task force said they hope to publish the full results "within a month." However, the third and final public comment period for the manual opened last week and ends on June 15. Although the entire period is 6 weeks long, the public may only have 2 weeks to comment after the publication of the field trials’ findings.<\/p>\n

However, according to Dr. Regier, the release of the field trials results has not been seen as linked to the public comment period. "These preliminary data analyses were to directly inform the Work Groups on the results so that they could consider the reliability of their formulations as well as the clinical utility and feasibility of the proposed changes. Although the general public may be interested in these results, it is more important to have them reviewed by scientific peers before they are entered into the scientific literature," Dr. Regier told Medscape Medical News<\/em>.<\/p>\n

"These will form a part of the basis not only for the current revision but for future revisions as well. The analysis, peer-review, and publication process usually takes quite a bit more time than 2 weeks to a month. We will certainly make these findings available for clinicians, scientists, and the public as soon as possible — possibly online ahead of print if the chosen journal is able to provide this service. What we were able to do at the annual meeting is provide an overview and preliminary presentation of some of the most important findings. However, much more detailed information will be needed for a thorough evaluation of these findings in the peer review and publication process," he added…<\/sup><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I guess this quote<\/font><\/strong><\/u><\/a> from the DSM-5 site is no longer operative:<\/div>\n
\n
After completion of the DSM-5 Field Trials, work group members will make any necessary revisions to their draft criteria. These revised criteria will be posted online, and this site will once again be open to submission of public comments.<\/sup><\/font><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
I was sitting in a boat on a very peaceful salt-marsh not thinking about much of anything, and I had a quick thought pass through that I marked for later pondering. It was about this business of not reporting the Field Trial results during the public comment period. We’ve known that the Field Trial results must’ve been problematic from January 1 when they published DSM-5: How Reliable Is Reliable Enough<\/font><\/strong><\/u><\/a>?<\/font><\/strong>. So when they reported on the results in early May at the APA Meeting, the dismal numbers were no surprise. Nor am I totally surprised that they didn’t publish them. The thought I had last week wasn’t just about that. It was, "I don’t believe them.<\/em>" For example, I don’t believe this statement is true:<\/div>\n
\n
…according to Dr. Regier, the release of the field trials results has not been seen as linked to the public comment period. "These preliminary data analyses were to directly inform the Work Groups on the results so that they could consider the reliability of their formulations as well as the clinical utility and feasibility of the proposed changes."<\/sup><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
And I don’t believe this either: <\/div>\n
\n
The analysis, peer-review, and publication process usually takes quite a bit more time than 2 weeks to a month…<\/sup><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
They already had the Field Trial results well before the May meeting. I think they’re telling us what they want us to believe, adjusting their story in this case to the results they’d rather us not see. It’s a chronic pattern of "spin" apparent from their first response to Dr. Frances [Setting the Record Straight: A Response to Frances Commentary on DSM-V<\/font><\/strong><\/u><\/a>]. Every time I read something they say, my mind starts arguing with it. I just don’t believe them…<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Three professional organization responses to third and final DSM-5 stakeholder review dxrevisionwatch by Suzy Chapman June 21, 2012 No publication of field trial data Following posting of the third draft on May 2, it was anticipated APA would publish full results from the DSM-5 field trials “within a month”. [Source: Deborah Brauser for Medscape Medical News: interview with […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-24714","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24714","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24714"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24714\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24719,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24714\/revisions\/24719"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24714"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24714"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24714"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}