Special DSM‐V issues on anxiety, obsessive‐compulsive spectrum, posttraumatic, and dissociative disorders

We are very pleased to introduce a special series of review articles in Depression and Anxiety which focus on key issues for DSM-V. These literature reviews were commissioned by the DSM-V Work Group on Anxiety, Obsessive–Compulsive Spectrum, Posttraumatic, and Dissociative Disorders. These articles present some options and preliminary recommendations to be considered for DSM-V. The DSM-V development process has been under way for many years. For the past several years, our Work Group has been considering possible changes to DSM-IV, the goal of which is to enhance the reliability, validity, and clinical utility of DSM. By introducing reliable and atheoretical diagnostic criteria, DSM-III was a groundbreaking document; changes made in DSM-III-R and DSM-IV further advanced the diagnostic system. Nevertheless, nearly two decades have passed since DSM-IV was developed, and the field has advanced substantially since then. The literature reviews in the Depression and Anxiety special series are an important part of the evidence-based process our Work Group is using. These reviews focus on selected topics that are especially relevant to the Work Group’s deliberations; they are not intended to be general reviews of disorders, and they needed to adhere to space constraints. The first issue of the special series—the current issue—focuses on most of the anxiety disorders. The second issue will focus on obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) and other disorders assigned to our Work Group which many in the field consider to be related to OCD. The third issue in this special series will focus on trauma and stress-related disorders as well as dissociative disorders. We anticipate that additional reviews on selected topics will be published elsewhere. By summarizing and synthesizing what is in many cases a large published literature, these reviews have been invaluable to the Work Group, and they have informed the Work Group’s deliberations. One caveat, however, is that the reviews represent work by their authors for consideration by the Work Group. Thus, the reviews may not completely reflect the collective view of the Work Group or perfectly match the Work Group’s preliminary proposed criteria (which are posted on DSM5.org). The Work Group’s preliminary recommendations have also been informed by additional secondary data analyses of existing data sets, collection of new data for DSM-V, surveys of experts, and invaluable input and data provided by the Work Group’s many advisors and liaisons, DSM-V Task Force members, other members of the scientific community, and other stakeholders. Another caveat: final recommendations and decisions for DSM-V have not been made yet! Thus, recommendations in these review articles, and those posted on DSM5.org, should be considered preliminary at this time. Recommendations may evolve further over time, as the DSM-V development process has many remaining steps. For example, field trials will test some of the proposed changes, more new data will be obtained, additional secondary data analyses will be conducted, and input will be obtained from experts and the broader mental health community. The Work Group commissioned these literature reviews because recommended changes to DSM-IV should be as evidence based as possible. Evidence regarding the reliability and validity of proposed changes needs to be weighed, as does clinical utility— i.e., changes should be helpful to clinicians in formulating diagnoses, assessing patients, and selecting