Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2007;334:789-793 (14 April), doi:10.1136/bmj.39162.538553.80
Jonathan I Bisson, clinical senior lecturer in psychiatry
Cardiff University, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff CF14 4XW
bissonji@cf.ac.uk
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Vivid descriptions of reactions to traumatic events span many centuries, although their nature has changed over time.1 Post-traumatic stress disorder was first recognised as a diagnosable psychiatric disorder in the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III)w1 and ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition).2 Its very existence continues to attract debate, with several authors arguing that culturally determined, understandable emotions to traumatic events are being pathologised.w2 However, even its most ardent critics are more concerned by overdiagnosis than by whether post-traumatic stress disorder should be used as a label for the severe mental health problems some people experience after traumatic events.3 This article provides an overview of our current understanding of the disorder, who it affects, and the best approaches to its prevention and management.
I consulted recent systematic searches used to prepare Cochrane reviews and BMJ Clinical Evidence on prevention and treatment
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati What's this?
Read all Rapid Responses