Changing Diagnostic Criteria Did Not Expand Cannabis Dependence Uniformly in a Historical Comparison

A historical comparison of DSM-III and DSM-III-R diagnoses found that neither system consistently predominated for cannabis dependence. Changes that expanded diagnoses for some other substances did not necessarily produce the same pattern for cannabis.

The study compared classifications in the same setting

Recent admissions to drug-treatment centers were interviewed with an instrument covering criteria from both systems. Investigators examined agreement, overlap and positive agreement by substance. These measures assess correspondence between classification systems, rather than the biological presence of a drug or impairment at a particular time.

Results differed across substances

The abstract reports a wider dependence classification under DSM-III-R for alcohol, tobacco and amphetamines, but no predominating system for cannabis, opioids or sedative-related categories. A general statement that the revision simply increased every substance diagnosis would therefore be unsupported.

Historical labels cannot be substituted for current criteria

This was a comparison of older diagnostic systems in a treatment-seeking population. It does not establish the prevalence of a current cannabis diagnosis in the general public. Nor can a toxicology result alone determine which interview-based criteria a person met. Drug detection and longitudinal clinical assessment address different evidence.

Interpreting the evidence

When comparing cannabis diagnoses across studies, retain the criteria edition, instrument and population. Apparent changes in diagnostic counts can reflect how a category was defined as well as changes in the people assessed.

Related reading: separate functional and structural endpoints in cannabinoid research.

Research reference

Cottler LB; Helzer JE; Mager D; et al. (1991). Agreement between DSM-III and III-R substance use disorders. Drug and alcohol dependence. doi:10.1016/0376-8716(91)90018-t. Evidence basis: report abstract.

Spread the love


The National Black Lawyers

top 40 lawyers

civil trial law

Lawyers of Distinction

Loading...

Recent Blog Articles

A Living-Subject Cannabis Blood-Fraction Ratio Did Not Validate Postmortem Conversion

A plasma-to-whole-blood relationship observed in living cannabis users did not validate the same conversion after death. Giroud and colleagues found substantially greater variability in postmortem samples and cautioned against applying an exposure-time model in that setting. The study compared different blood fractions The investigators examined cannabinoid measurements in eight living…

Spread the love

Read Article: A Living-Subject Cannabis Blood-Fraction Ratio Did Not Validate Postmortem Conversion

A Cannabis Muscle-Tone Opinion Needs a Defined Measurement Method

A statement that someone’s muscle tone indicates cannabis impairment needs a defined observation and measurement method. A published perspective questions whether a subjective limb assessment can carry the same meaning as a standardized clinical evaluation. The critique concerns what was measured The perspective contrasts descriptions such as normal, rigid or…

Spread the love

Read Article: A Cannabis Muscle-Tone Opinion Needs a Defined Measurement Method

A THC-Positive Driver Case Series Did Not Supply a Drug-Free Specificity Group

A study selected from THC-positive driver investigations cannot establish drug-free specificity without a suitable negative comparison group. A two-year case review provides useful observations within its selected cases, but it does not answer every diagnostic-accuracy question. Selection happened before the final analysis Declues and colleagues began with THC-positive cases from…

Spread the love

Read Article: A THC-Positive Driver Case Series Did Not Supply a Drug-Free Specificity Group

Speak with an expert today!

Contact the offices of Okorie Okorocha for professional and reliable advice which you can trust.

Call (424) 363-3347 Contact Us