Main Article Content


The relevance/ and visibility of psychiatric disorders within the realm of medicine has significantly increased in recent times, possibly due to their high frequency and the negative impact they have on cost, disability and quality of life. The subjective nature of these disorders, their clinical complexity and the absence of reliable markers, keep us completely dependent on anamnesis and clinical examination. All of this, forces us, periodically, to review and refine diagnostic systems, hoping to improve the recognition and effective management of mental disorders. The scientific progress in basic neuroscience, observed during and following the “decade of the brain”, coupled with a lack of satisfaction with the existing system (DSM-IV) suggested it was the moment to embark in this task, hence the process leading to DSM-5.


1. Feighner JP, Robins E, Guze SB, Woodruff RA, Winokur G, Munoz R. diagnostic criteria for use in psychiatric research. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1972; 26: 57-63.

2. Spitzer RL, Endicott JE, Robins E. Research diagnostic criteria, Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1978; 35: 773-82

3. Hyman SE. Can neuroscience be integrated in the DSM-V?. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2007; 8:725-32.

4. Insel TR. Cuthbert BN, Endophenotypes. bridging genomic complexity and disorder heterogeneity. Biol Psychiatry. 2009; 66: 988-9.

5. Insel T. Transforming diagnosis. NIMH Director’s Blog, http://

6. Psychiatry’s guide is out of touch with science, experts say. The New York Times, May 6, 2013.

7.Satel SL. Why the fuss over the DSM-5?. The New York Times. 2013 July 12,

8.Lieberman, Insel issue joint statement about DSM-5 and RDoC. Psychiatric News. Tuesday, May 14th. 2013.

Escobar, J. I. (2024). An insider’s view of the new diagnostic and statistical manual of North American psychiatry (DSM-5). Colombia Medica, 44(2), 129–131.


Download data is not yet available.
Received 2013-05-31
Accepted 2013-05-31
Published 2024-06-24

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.