Published in

Cambridge University Press, CNS Spectrums, 10(11), p. 762-779

DOI: 10.1017/s1092852900014899

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

What is the optimal way to subdivide obsessive-compulsive disorder?

This paper is available in a repository.
This paper is available in a repository.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

ABSTRACTThe clinical presentation of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) varies not only across patients but over the course of the disorder. This diversity indicates that OCD is a heterogeneous disorder, which may have an important impact on psychopathological, longitudinal, genetic, and treatment research. To better understand OCD heterogeneity, more homogeneous phenotypic descriptions are necessary to delimiting clinically meaningful subgroups of patients. Besides phenotypic descriptions, another method of delimiting OCD patient subgroups includes the search for endophenotypes (extended phenotypes) based on neurophysiological, immunological, genetic, neuropsychological, or neuroanatomic (neuroimaging) paradigms. This article will describe some strategies that deal with OCD heterogeneity, including the identification of more homogeneous phenotypical categories, an improved understanding of obsessive-compulsive symptom dimensions and how to use them as quantitative traits, and broadening the diagnostic boundaries of OCD to include other related conditions. The relevance and limitations of each approach are also discussed. Since the etiological mechanisms associated with the expressions of OCD are unknown, there is probably not one but several heuristic strategies to search for more homogeneous OCD subgroup, that combined may provide the most fruitful results.