| Title |
Disruptive mood dysregulation disorder: current insights
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ndt.s100312 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Raman Baweja, Susan D Mayes, Usman Hameed, James G Waxmonsky |
| Abstract |
Disruptive mood dysregulation disorder (DMDD) was introduced as a new diagnostic entity under the category of depressive disorders in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). It was included in DSM-5 primarily to address concerns about the misdiagnosis and consequent overtreatment of bipolar disorder in children and adolescents. DMDD does provide a home for a large percentage of referred children with severe persistent irritability that did not fit well into any DSM, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) diagnostic category. However, it has been a controversial addition to the DSM-5 due to lack of published validity studies, leading to questions about its validity as a distinct disorder. In this article, the authors discuss the diagnostic criteria, assessment, epidemiology, criticism of the diagnosis, and pathophysiology, as well as treatment and future directions for DMDD. They also review the literature on severe mood dysregulation, as described by the National Institute of Mental Health, as the scientific support for DMDD is based primarily on studies of severe mood dysregulation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 120 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 11% |
| Researcher | 7 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 21 | 17% |
| Unknown | 35 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 28 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 9% |
| Unknown | 40 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,640,029
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#209
of 3,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,566
of 381,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#10
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,132 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 381,036 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.