This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on ISI (3)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Psychiatry, Other  • Diagnosis  • Alert me on articles by topic

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Kessler et al¹ err in stating that " . . . the Regier-proposed restriction of cases in DSM-V is an attempt to declare that mild cases do not exist."^1(p1118) Our earlier article had nothing to do with DSM-V; rather, we merely presented a method for updating DSM-III and DSM-III-R prevalence rates by applying previously unused information embedded in the Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study and National Comorbidity Survey data sets to recalculate rates of more stringently defined DSM-IV disorders.² We applied to the scoring algorithms for an entire syndrome or diagnosis those rules contained in the original Diagnostic Interview Schedule and Composite International Diagnostic Interview assessment instruments that were used to assess the "clinical significance" of reported symptoms in the Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study and National Comorbidity Survey. We did not, as these authors assert, require service use in the past 12 months. If our approach to assessing the clinical significance of syndromes is . . . [Full Text of this Article]

AUTHOR INFORMATION
Darrel A. Regier, MD, MPH; William E. Narrow, MD, MPH; Donald S. Rae, MA

RELATED ARTICLE

For DSM-V, It’s the "Disorder Threshold," Stupid—Reply
Ronald C. Kessler, Kathleen R. Merikangas, Patricia Berglund, William W. Eaton, Doreen S. Koretz, and Ellen E. Walters
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2004;61(10):1051-1052.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT