ICD-11#ICD-11 CDDR

File:ICD-11 Logo.jpg

{{See also|Medical classification#WHO Family of International Classifications}}

The WHO Family of International Classifications (WHO-FIC), also called the WHO Family,{{Cite web | author=WHO | title=World Health Organization Family of International Classifications: definition, scope and purpose | url=https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/classification/who-fic-network/familydocument2007.pdf | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211123101444/https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/classification/who-fic-network/familydocument2007.pdf | archive-date=23 November 2021 | url-status=live}} is a suite of classifications used to describe various aspects of the health care system in a consistent manner, with a standardised terminology.{{Cite web | author=WHO | title=1.1.3 ICD in the context of WHO Family of International Classifications (WHO-FIC) | url=https://icdcdn.who.int/icd11referenceguide/en/html/index.html#icd-in-the-context-of-the-who-family-of-international-classifications-whofic | website=ICD-11 Reference Guide}} The abbreviation is variously written with or without a hyphen ("WHO-FIC" or "WHOFIC"). The WHO-FIC consists of four components: the WHO-FIC Foundation, the Reference Classifications, the Derived Classifications, and the Related Classifications. The WHO-FIC Foundation,{{Cite web | author=WHO | title=WHO-FIC Foundation | website=icd.who.int | url=https://icd.who.int/dev11/f/en | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240328222617/https://icd.who.int/dev11/f/en | archive-date=Mar 28, 2024 | url-status=live}} also called the Foundation Component,{{Cite web | author=WHO | title=WHO-FIC Maintenance Platform | url=https://icd.who.int/dev11 | website=icd.who.int}} represents the entire WHO-FIC universe.{{Cite web | author=WHO | title=WHO Family of International Classifications (FIC) | url=https://www.who.int/standards/classifications | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211122233707/https://www.who.int/standards/classifications | archive-date=22 November 2021}} It is a collection of over hundred thousand entities, also called classes or nodes. Entities are anything relevant to health care. They are used to describe diseases, disorders, body parts, bodily functions, reasons for visit, medical procedures, microbes, causes of death, social circumstances of the patient, and much more.

The Foundation Component is a multidimensional collection of entities. An entity can have multiple parents and child nodes. For example, pneumonia can be categorized as a lung infection, but also as a bacterial or viral infection (i.e. by site or by etiology). Thus, the node Pneumonia (entity id: {{ICD11|142052508|142052508}}) has two parents: Lung infections (entity id: {{ICD11|915779102|915779102}}) and Certain infectious or parasitic diseases (entity id: {{ICD11|1435254666|1435254666}}). The Pneumonia node in turn has various children, including Bacterial pneumonia (entity id: {{ICD11|1323682030|1323682030}}) and Viral pneumonia (entity id: {{ICD11|1024154490|1024154490}}).

The Foundation Component is the common core on which all Reference and Derived Classifications are based. The WHO-FIC contains three Reference Classifications: the ICD-11 MMS (see below), the ICF, and the ICHI. Derived Classifications are based on the three Reference Classifications, and are usually tailored for a particular specialty.{{Cite web | author=WHO | title=1.1.4.3 WHO-FIC: Derived Classifications | url=https://icdcdn.who.int/icd11referenceguide/en/html/index.html#whofic-derived-classifications | website=ICD-11 Reference Guide}} For example, the ICD-O is a Derived Classification used in oncology. Each node of the Foundation has a unique entity id, which remains the same in all Reference and Derived Classifications, guaranteeing consistency. Related Classifications are complementary, and cover specialty areas not covered elsewhere in the WHO-FIC. For example, the International Classification of Nursing Practice (ICNP), draws on terms from the Foundation Component, but also uses terms specific for nursing not found in the Foundation.

A classification can be represented as a tabular list, which is a "flat" hierarchical tree of categories. In this tree, all entities can only have a single parent, and therefore must be mutually exclusive of each other.{{Cite web | author=WHO | title=1.2.8 Foundation Component and Tabular Lists of ICD–11 | url=https://icdcdn.who.int/icd11referenceguide/en/html/index.html#foundation-component-and-tabular-lists-of-icd11 | website=ICD-11 Reference Guide}} Such a classification is also called a linearization.

The ICD-11 MMS is the main Reference Classification of the WHO-FIC, and the primary linearization of the Foundation Component. The ICD-11 MMS is commonly referred to as simply "the ICD-11". The "MMS" part was added to differentiate the ICD-11 entities in the Foundation from those in the Classification. The ICD-11 MMS does not contain all classes from the Foundation ICD-11, and also adds some classes from the ICF. MMS stands for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics. The abbreviation is variously written with or without a hyphen between 11 and MMS ("ICD-11 MMS" or "ICD-11-MMS").

The ICD-11 MMS consists of approximately 85,000 entities. Entities can be chapters, blocks or categories. A chapter is a top level entity of the hierarchy; the MMS contains 28 of them (see Chapters section below). A block is used to group related categories or blocks together. A category can be anything that is relevant to health care. Every category has a unique, alphanumeric code called an ICD-11 code, or just ICD code. Chapters and blocks never have ICD-11 codes, and therefore cannot be diagnosed. An ICD-11 code is not the same as an entity id.

The ICD-11 MMS takes the form of a "flat" hierarchical tree. As aforementioned, the entities in this linearization can only have a single parent, and therefore must be mutually exclusive of each other. To make up for this limitation, the hierarchy of the MMS contains gray nodes,See these screenshots: [https://archive.today/tzqXX/d6dd919a3e1700f0f7c8ef70ef899e5ee5c826c4.png 1], [https://archive.today/AzkYs/62fbae3bdd00a3fb409f6bba472d443663e01eae.png 2]. These nodes appear as children in the hierarchy, but actually have a different parent node. They originally belong to a different block or chapter, but are also listed elsewhere because of overlap. For example, Pneumonia ({{ICD11|CA40}}) has two parents in the Foundation: "Lung infections" (site) and "Certain infectious or parasitic diseases" (etiology). In the MMS, Pneumonia is categorized in the "Lung infections", with a gray node in "Certain infectious or parasitic diseases". The same goes for injuries, poisonings, neoplasms, and developmental anomalies, which can occur in almost any part of the body. They each have their own chapters, but their categories also have gray nodes in the chapters of the organs they affect. For instance, the blood cancers, including all forms of leukemia, are in the "Neoplasms" chapter, but they are also displayed as gray nodes in the chapter "Diseases of the blood or blood-forming organs". The linearization includes a fourth type of entity called "windows":{{cite web |title=ICD Schema |url=https://icd.who.int/icdapi/docs/ICD-schema.html |website=icd.who.int |publisher=World Health Organization}} their purpose, similarly to blocks, is to group other categories, but, unlike blocks, they only group entities that are located elsewhere in the classification, meaning that their only children are gray nodes.

The ICD-11 MMS also contains residual categories, or residual nodes. These are the "Other specified" and "Unspecified" categories. The former can be used to code conditions that do not fit with any of the more specific MMS entities, the latter can be used when necessary information may not be available in the source documentation. The ICD-11 Reference Guide advises that health care workers always aim to include the most specific level of detail possible, either with one code or multiple codes.{{Cite web | author=WHO | title=2.8.5 Residual categories – "Other" and "Unspecified" | url=https://icdcdn.who.int/icd11referenceguide/en/html/index.html#residual-categories-other-and-unspecified | website=ICD-11 Reference Guide}} In the ICD-11 Browser, residual nodes are displayed in a maroon color.Talk:ICD-11/Archive 1#Residual nodes are maroon-colored Residual categories are not in the Foundation, and therefore don't have an entity ID. Thus, in the MMS, they are the only categories with derivative entity IDs: their IDs are the same as their parent nodes, with "/other" or "/unspecified" tagged at the end. Their ICD codes always end with Y for "Other specified" categories, or Z for "Unspecified" categories (e.g. {{ICD11|1C4Y}} and {{ICD11|1C4Z}}).

The ICD-11, both the ICD-11 Foundation and the MMS, can be accessed using a multilingual REST API. Documentation on the ICD API and some additional tools for integration into third-party applications can be found at the ICD API home page.{{Cite web | author=WHO | title=ICD API | url=https://icd.who.int/icdapi | access-date=5 May 2022 | website=icd.who.int/icdapi}}

The WHO has released spreadsheets that can be used to link and convert ICD-10 codes to those of the ICD-11. They can be downloaded from the ICD-11 MMS browser.{{Cite web | author=WHO | title=ICD-11 MMS Browser | url=https://icd.who.int/browse/latest-release/mms/en | website=icd.who.int}} In 2017, SNOMED International announced plans to release a SNOMED CT to ICD-11 MMS map.{{Cite press release | title=Position Statement: SNOMED CT to ICD-11-MMS Map | date=3 November 2017 | publisher=SNOMED International | url=https://www.snomed.org/news-and-events/articles/position-statement-snomed-ct-icd-11-mms-map | archive-url=https://archive.today/20220206203441/https://www.snomed.org/news-and-events/articles/position-statement-snomed-ct-icd-11-mms-map | archive-date=6 February 2022 | url-status=dead}}

The ICD-11 Foundation, and consequently the MMS, are updated annually, similarly to the ICD-10. Following the initial release of a stable version on 18 June 2018, the Foundation and the MMS have received seven updates {{as of|February 2025|lc=y}}.{{Cite web | author=WHO | title=ICD-11 MMS releases | url=https://icd.who.int/browse/releases/mms | website=icd.who.int | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250224155234/https://icd.who.int/browse/releases/mms | archive-date=24 February 2025 | url-status=live}}{{Cite web | author=WHO | title=ICD-11 Foundation releases | url=https://icd.who.int/browse/releases/foundation | website=icd.who.int | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250224155719/https://icd.who.int/browse/releases/foundation | archive-date=24 February 2025 | url-status=live}}

Below is a table of all chapters of the ICD-11 MMS, the primary linearization of the Foundation Component.

Unlike the ICD-10 codes, the ICD-11 MMS codes never contain the letters I or O, to prevent confusion with the numbers 1 and 0.{{Cite web | author=WHO | title=1.2.7.1 Code structure | url=https://icdcdn.who.int/icd11referenceguide/en/html/index.html#code-structure | website=ICD-11 Reference Guide}}

Below is a summary of notable changes in the ICD-11 MMS compared to the ICD-10.

The ICD-11 MMS features a more flexible coding structure. In the ICD-10; every code starts with a letter, followed by a two digit number (e.g. {{ICD10|P35}})—creating 99 slots, excluding subcategories and blocks. This proved enough for most chapters, but four are so voluminous that their categories span multiple letters: Chapter {{rn|I}} (A00–B99), Chapter {{rn|II}} (C00.0–D48.9), Chapter {{rn|XIX}} (S00–T98), and Chapter {{rn|XX}} (V01–Y98). In the ICD-11 MMS, there is a single first character for every chapter. The codes of the first nine chapters begin with the numbers 1 to 9, while the next nineteen chapters start with the letters A to X. The letters I and O are not used, to prevent confusion with the numbers 1 and 0. The chapter character is then followed by a letter, a number, and a fourth character that starts as a number (0–9, e.g. {{ICD11|KA80}}) and may then continue as a letter (A–Z, e.g. {{ICD11|KA8A}}). The WHO opted for a forced number as the third character to prevent the spelling of "undesirable words". In the ICD-10, each entity within a chapter either has a code (e.g. {{ICD10|P35}}) or a code range (e.g. {{ICD10|P35–P39}}). The latter is a block. In the ICD-11 MMS, blocks never have codes, and not every entity necessarily has a code, although each entity does have a unique id.

In the ICD-10, the next level of the hierarchy is indicated in the code by a dot and a single number (e.g. {{ICD10|P35.2}}). This is the lowest available level in the ICD-10 hierarchy, causing an artificial limitation of 10 subcategories per code (.0 to .9).{{cite journal | vauthors = Reed GM, First MB, Kogan CS, Hyman SE, Gureje O, Gaebel W, Maj M, Stein DJ, Maercker A, Tyrer P, Claudino A, Garralda E, Salvador-Carulla L, Ray R, Saunders JB, Dua T, Poznyak V, Medina-Mora ME, Pike KM, Ayuso-Mateos JL, Kanba S, Keeley JW, Khoury B, Krasnov VN, Kulygina M, Lovell AM, de Jesus Mari J, Maruta T, Matsumoto C, Rebello TJ, Roberts MC, Robles R, Sharan P, Zhao M, Jablensky A, Udomratn P, Rahimi-Movaghar A, Rydelius PA, Bährer-Kohler S, Watts AD, Saxena S | display-authors = 6 | title = Innovations and changes in the ICD-11 classification of mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders | journal = World Psychiatry | volume = 18 | issue = 1 | pages = 3–19 | date = February 2019 | pmid = 30600616 | pmc = 6313247 | doi = 10.1002/wps.20611 | quote = In the ICD-10, the number of groupings of disorders was artificially constrained by the decimal coding system used in the classification | doi-access = free | ref = {{harvid|Reed et al.|2019}}}} In the ICD-11 MMS, this limitation no longer exists: after 0–9, the list may continue with A–Z (e.g. {{ICD11|KA62.0}} – {{ICD11|KA62.A}}). Then, following the first character after the dot, a second character may be used in the next level of the hierarchy (e.g. {{ICD11|KA40.00}} – {{ICD11|KA40.08}}). This level is currently the lowest appearing in the MMS. The large amount of unused coding space in the MMS allows for updates to be made without having to change the other categories, ensuring that codes remain stable.

The ICD-11 features five new chapters. The third chapter of the ICD-10, "Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs and certain disorders involving the immune mechanism", has been split in two: "Diseases of the blood or blood-forming organs" (chapter 3) and "Diseases of the immune system" (chapter 4). The other new chapters are "Sleep-wake disorders" (chapter 7), "Conditions related to sexual health" (chapter 17, see section), and "Supplementary Chapter Traditional Medicine Conditions - Module I" (chapter 26, see section).

The following mental disorders have been newly added to the ICD-11, but were already included in the American ICD-10-CM adaption: Binge eating disorder (ICD-11: {{ICD11|6B82}}; ICD-10-CM: {{ICD10CM|F50.81}}), Bipolar type II disorder (ICD-11: {{ICD11|6A61}}; ICD-10-CM: {{ICD10CM|F31.81}}), Body dysmorphic disorder (ICD-11: {{ICD11|6B21}}; ICD-10-CM: {{ICD10CM|F45.22}}), Excoriation disorder (ICD-11: {{ICD11|6B25.1}}; ICD-10-CM: {{ICD10CM|F42.4}}), Frotteuristic disorder (ICD-11: {{ICD11|6D34}}; ICD-10-CM: {{ICD10CM|F65.81}}), Hoarding disorder (ICD-11: {{ICD11|6B24}}; ICD-10-CM: {{ICD10CM|F42.3}}), and Intermittent explosive disorder (ICD-11: {{ICD11|6C73}}; ICD-10-CM: {{ICD10CM|F63.81}}).

The following mental disorders have been newly added to the ICD-11, and are not in the ICD-10-CM: Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder ({{ICD11|6B83}}), Body integrity dysphoria ({{ICD11|6C21}}), Catatonia ({{ICD11|486722075|486722075}}), Complex post-traumatic stress disorder ({{ICD11|6B41}}), Gaming disorder ({{ICD11|6C51}}), Olfactory reference disorder ({{ICD11|6B22}}), and Prolonged grief disorder ({{ICD11|6B42}}).

Other notable changes include:

• Distinct personality disorders have been collapsed into a single Personality disorder diagnosis, using a dimensional (as opposed to categorical) model; see Personality disorders section.
• All subtypes of Schizophrenia (e.g. paranoid, hebephrenic, catatonic) have been removed. Instead, a dimensional model is used with the category Symptomatic manifestations of primary psychotic disorders ({{ICD11|6A25}}), which allows the coding for Positive symptoms ({{ICD11|6A25.0}}), Negative symptoms ({{ICD11|6A25.1}}), Depressive symptoms ({{ICD11|6A25.2}}), Manic symptoms ({{ICD11|6A25.3}}), Psychomotor symptoms ({{ICD11|6A25.4}}), and Cognitive symptoms ({{ICD11|6A25.5}}).
• Persistent mood disorders ({{ICD10|F34}}), which consists of Cyclothymia ({{ICD10|F34.0}}) and Dysthymia ({{ICD10|F34.1}}), have been deleted. Cyclothymia has been categorized under bipolar and related disorders ({{ICD11|6A62}}), while dysthymia has been categorized under depressive disorders ({{ICD11|6A72}}).
• The ICD-10 differentiates between Phobic anxiety disorders ({{ICD10|F40}}), such as Agoraphobia ({{ICD10|F40.0}}), and Other anxiety disorders ({{ICD10|F41}}), such as Generalized anxiety disorder ({{ICD10|F41.1}}). The ICD-11 merges both groups together as Anxiety or fear-related disorders ({{ICD11|1336943699|1336943699}}).
• All Pervasive developmental disorders ({{ICD10|F84}}) are merged into one category, Autism spectrum disorder ({{ICD11|6A02}}), except for Rett syndrome, which is moved to the developmental anomalies chapter ({{ICD11|LD90.4}}).
• Hyperkinetic disorders ({{ICD10|F90}}) is renamed Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ({{ICD11|6A05}}), and a distinction in subtypes is made between predominantly inattentive ({{ICD11|6A05.0}}), predominantly hyperactive-impulsive ({{ICD11|6A05.1}}), and combined ({{ICD11|6A05.2}}). Hyperkinetic conduct disorder ({{ICD10|F90.1}}) has been removed.
• Acute stress reaction ({{ICD10|F43.0}}) has been moved out of the mental disorder chapter, and placed in the chapter "Factors influencing health status or contact with health services" ({{ICD11|QE84}}). Thus, in the ICD-11, Acute stress reaction is no longer considered a mental disorder.{{Cite web | first=Jonathan D. | last=Raskin | name-list-style = vanc | title=What's New in the International Classification of Diseases? | url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/making-meaning/201807/what-s-new-in-the-international-classification-diseases | website=Psychology Today | date=25 July 2018 | archive-url=https://archive.today/20200405171146/https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/making-meaning/201807/what-s-new-in-the-international-classification-diseases | archive-date=5 April 2020 | url-status=live}}

Following an extensive, years-long revision process involving nearly 15,000 clinicians from 155 countries, the WHO developed the ICD-11 CDDG (Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines),{{Cite journal | first=Michael B. | last=First | display-authors=etal | date=5 February 2015 | title=The development of the ICD-11 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines for Mental and Behavioural Disorders | journal=World Psychiatry | volume=14 | issue=1 | pages=82–90 | doi=10.1002/wps.20189| pmid=25655162 | pmc=4329901 }}{{Cite journal | first=Anirban | last=Gozi | year=2019 | title=Highlights of ICD-11 Classification of Mental, Behavioral, and Neurodevelopmental Disorders | journal=Indian Journal of Private Psychiatry | volume=13 | issue=1 | pages=11–17 | quote=Publication of the CDDG version of ICD-11 is expected following approval of the overall system by the World Health Assembly. | doi=10.5005/jp-journals-10067-0030| doi-access=free }}{{Cite journal | first1=Wolfgang | last1=Gaebel | first2=Johannes | last2=Stricker | first3=Ariane | last3=Kerst | date=1 April 2022 | title=Changes from ICD-10 to ICD-11 and future directions in psychiatric classification | journal=Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience | volume=22 | issue=1 | pages=7–15 | doi=10.31887/DCNS.2020.22.1/wgaebel | pmid=32699501 | pmc=7365296 | quote=A series of field studies evaluated how well the ICD-11 CDDG function when applied by health professionals.}} later renamed the ICD-11 CDDR (Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Requirements).{{Cite journal | first=Geoffrey M. | last=Reed | display-authors=etal | date=7 May 2022 | title=Emerging experience with selected new categories in the ICD-11: complex PTSD, prolonged grief disorder, gaming disorder, and compulsive sexual behaviour disorder | journal=World Psychiatry | volume=21 | issue=2 | pages=189–213 | doi=10.1002/wps.20960 | pmid=35524599 | pmc=9077619 | quote=The change in title from CDDG to CDDR relates to the development by the WHO over the past decade of a body of policies that define guidelines in a specific way that is not applicable to the CDDR.}} The CDDR is a comprehensive diagnostic manual for identifying and measuring mental illnesses with a uniform terminology, similar to the DSM-5.{{Cite journal | first=Pasquale | last=Pezzella | date=7 May 2022 | title=The ICD-11 is now officially in effect | journal=World Psychiatry | volume=21 | issue=2 | pages=331–332 | doi=10.1002/wps.20982| pmid=35524598 | pmc=9077598 }}{{Cite press release | title=New manual released to support diagnosis of mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders added in ICD-11 | url=https://www.who.int/news/item/08-03-2024-new-manual-released-to-support-diagnosis-of-mental--behavioural-and-neurodevelopmental-disorders-added-in-icd-11 | publisher=WHO | location=Geneva, Switzerland | date=8 March 2024 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240308092719/https://www.who.int/news/item/08-03-2024-new-manual-released-to-support-diagnosis-of-mental--behavioural-and-neurodevelopmental-disorders-added-in-icd-11 | archive-date=8 March 2024 | url-status=live}} The ICD-11 CDDR was developed around the same time as the DSM-5, and the work groups of both projects regularly met to discuss their efforts. The CDDR and the DSM-5 are similar, but not identical.{{Cite book | author=WHO | date=8 March 2024 | title=Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders | url=https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/375767/9789240077263-eng.pdf | edition=electronic | isbn=978-92-4-007726-3 | page=8 | publisher=World Health Organization | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240309090538/https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/375767/9789240077263-eng.pdf | archive-date=9 March 2024 | url-status=live | quote=In this regard, ICD-11 and DSM-5 are quite similar to one another, though not identical, and substantially different from ICD10 and DSM-IV.}} The ICD-11 CDDR is the successor to the ICD-10 CDDG, which was first released in 1992[https://books.google.com/books?id=DFM0DgAAQBAJ Google Books entry on the ICD-10 CDDG] and was also known as the "Blue Book". The CDDR is integrated into the ICD-11, and can be viewed in [https://icd.who.int/browse/latest-release/mms/en the ICD-11 Browser]. On 8 March 2024, the CDDR was also released in book form. It can be downloaded for free from the WHO's website.{{Cite web | author=WHO | title=Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders (CDDR) | url=https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240077263 | website=who.int | date=8 March 2024 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240308110820/https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240077263 | archive-date=8 March 2024 | url-status=live}}

The personality disorder (PD) section has been completely revamped. All distinct PDs have been merged into one: Personality disorder ({{ICD11|6D10}}), which can be coded as mild ({{ICD11|6D10.0}}), moderate ({{ICD11|6D10.1}}), severe ({{ICD11|6D10.2}}), or severity unspecified ({{ICD11|6D10.Z}}). There is also an additional category called personality difficulty ({{ICD11|QE50.7}}), which can be used to describe personality traits that are problematic, but do not rise to the level of a PD. A personality disorder or difficulty can be specified by one or more Prominent personality traits or patterns ({{ICD11|6D11}}). The ICD-11 uses five trait domains: (1) negative affectivity ({{ICD11|6D11.0}}); (2) detachment ({{ICD11|6D11.1}}), (3) dissociality ({{ICD11|6D11.2}}), (4) disinhibition ({{ICD11|6D11.3}}), and (5) anankastia ({{ICD11|6D11.4}}). Listed directly underneath is borderline pattern ({{ICD11|6D11.5}}), a category similar to borderline personality disorder. This is not a trait in itself, but a combination of the five traits in certain severity.

Described as a clinical equivalent to the Big Five model,{{cite journal | vauthors = Irwin L, Malhi GS | title = Borderline personality disorder and ICD-11: A chance for change | url = https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0004867419837365 | journal = The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry | volume = 53 | issue = 7 | pages = 698–700 | date = July 2019 | pmid = 30897927 | doi = 10.1177/0004867419837365 | s2cid = 85446539 }} the five-trait system addresses several problems of the old category-based system. Of the ten PDs in the ICD-10, two were used with a disproportionate high frequency: emotionally unstable personality disorder, borderline type ({{ICD10|F60.3}}) and dissocial (antisocial) personality disorder ({{ICD10|F60.2}}).{{efn|It is perhaps important to note that the ICD has never featured the category narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), unlike the DSM, which has it since DSM-III and codes it under the ICD-category Other specific personality disorders (ICD-9: {{ICD9|301.8}}; ICD-10: {{ICD10|F60.8}}). Patients who might have NPD are sometimes also diagnosed with Dissocial/Antisocial personality disorder (ICD-9: {{ICD9|301.7}}; ICD-10: {{ICD10|F60.2}}).}} Many categories overlapped, and individuals with severe disorders often met the requirements for multiple PDs, which Reed et al. (2019) described as "artificial comorbidity". PD was therefore reconceptualized in terms of a general dimension of severity, focusing on five negative personality traits which a person can have to various degrees.{{cite journal | vauthors = Reed GM | title = Progress in developing a classification of personality disorders for ICD-11 | journal = World Psychiatry | volume = 17 | issue = 2 | pages = 227–229 | date = June 2018 | pmid = 29856549 | pmc = 5980531 | doi = 10.1002/wps.20533 | quote = PD was conceptualized in terms of a general dimension of severity, continuous with normal personality variation and sub-threshold personality difficulty. | doi-access = free }}

There was considerable debate regarding this new dimensional model, with many believing that categorical diagnosing should not be abandoned. In particular, there was disagreement about the status of borderline personality disorder. Reed (2018) wrote: "Some research suggests that borderline PD is not an independently valid category, but rather a heterogeneous marker for PD severity. Other researchers view borderline PD as a valid and distinct clinical entity, and claim that 50 years of research support the validity of the category. Many – though by no means all – clinicians appear to be aligned with the latter position. In the absence of more definitive data, there seemed to be little hope of accommodating these opposing views. However, the WHO took seriously the concerns being expressed that access to services for patients with borderline PD, which has increasingly been achieved in some countries based on arguments of treatment efficacy, might be seriously undermined." Thus, the WHO believed the inclusion of a borderline pattern category to be a "pragmatic compromise".{{cite journal | vauthors = Watts J | title = Problems with the ICD-11 classification of personality disorder | journal = The Lancet. Psychiatry | volume = 6 | issue = 6 | pages = 461–463 | date = June 2019 | pmid = 31122470 | doi = 10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30127-0 | s2cid = 163165767 | url = https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(19)30127-0/fulltext }}

The Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) included near the end of the DSM-5 is similar to the PD-system of the ICD-11, although much larger and more comprehensive.DSM-5, [https://books.google.com/books?id=-JivBAAAQBAJ&q=Alternative%20DSM-5%20Model%20for%20Personality%20Disorders pp. 761-781]. It was considered for inclusion in the ICD-11, but the WHO decided against it because it was considered "too complicated for implementation in most clinical settings around the world", since an explicit aim of the WHO was to develop a simple and efficient method that could also be used in low-resource settings.

Gaming disorder ({{ICD11|6C51}}) has been newly added to the ICD-11, and placed in the group "Disorders due to addictive behaviours", alongside Gambling disorder ({{ICD11|6C50}}). The latter was called Pathological gambling ({{ICD10|F63.0}}) in the ICD-10. Aside from Gaming disorder, the ICD-11 also features Hazardous gaming ({{ICD11|QE22}}), an ancillary category that can be used to identify problematic gaming which does not rise to the level of a disorder.

Although a majority{{cite journal | vauthors = Rumpf HJ, Achab S, Billieux J, Bowden-Jones H, Carragher N, Demetrovics Z, Higuchi S, King DL, Mann K, Potenza M, Saunders JB, Abbott M, Ambekar A, Aricak OT, Assanangkornchai S, Bahar N, Borges G, Brand M, Chan EM, Chung T, Derevensky J, Kashef AE, Farrell M, Fineberg NA, Gandin C, Gentile DA, Griffiths MD, Goudriaan AE, Grall-Bronnec M, Hao W, Hodgins DC, Ip P, Király O, Lee HK, Kuss D, Lemmens JS, Long J, Lopez-Fernandez O, Mihara S, Petry NM, Pontes HM, Rahimi-Movaghar A, Rehbein F, Rehm J, Scafato E, Sharma M, Spritzer D, Stein DJ, Tam P, Weinstein A, Wittchen HU, Wölfling K, Zullino D, Poznyak V | display-authors = 6 | title = Including gaming disorder in the ICD-11: The need to do so from a clinical and public health perspective | journal = Journal of Behavioral Addictions | volume = 7 | issue = 3 | pages = 556–561 | date = September 2018 | pmid = 30010410 | pmc = 6426367 | doi = 10.1556/2006.7.2018.59 | url = https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326427203 | quote = Their arguments led to a series of commentaries, most of which were in favor of including the new diagnosis of GD in the ICD-11. | doi-access = free | ref = {{harvid|Rumpf et al.|2018}}}} of scholars supported the inclusion of Gaming disorder (GD), a significant number did not. Aarseth et al. (2017) stated that the evidence base which this decision relied upon is of low quality, that the diagnostic criteria of gaming disorder are rooted in substance use and gambling disorder even though they are not the same, that no consensus exist on the definition and assessment of GD, and that a pre-defined category would lock research in a confirmatory approach.{{cite journal | vauthors = Aarseth E, Bean AM, Boonen H, Colder Carras M, Coulson M, Das D, Deleuze J, Dunkels E, Edman J, Ferguson CJ, Haagsma MC, Helmersson Bergmark K, Hussain Z, Jansz J, Kardefelt-Winther D, Kutner L, Markey P, Nielsen RK, Prause N, Przybylski A, Quandt T, Schimmenti A, Starcevic V, Stutman G, Van Looy J, Van Rooij AJ | display-authors = 6 | title = Scholars' open debate paper on the World Health Organization ICD-11 Gaming Disorder proposal | journal = Journal of Behavioral Addictions | volume = 6 | issue = 3 | pages = 267–270 | date = September 2017 | pmid = 28033714 | pmc = 5700734 | doi = 10.1556/2006.5.2016.088 | doi-access = free }} Rooij et al. (2017) questioned if what was called "gaming disorder" is in fact a coping strategy for underlying problems, such as depression, social anxiety, or ADHD. They also asserted moral panic, fueled by sensational media stories, and stated that the category could be stigmatizing people who are simply engaging in a very immersive hobby.{{cite journal | vauthors = van Rooij AJ, Ferguson CJ, Colder Carras M, Kardefelt-Winther D, Shi J, Aarseth E, Bean AM, Bergmark KH, Brus A, Coulson M, Deleuze J, Dullur P, Dunkels E, Edman J, Elson M, Etchells PJ, Fiskaali A, Granic I, Jansz J, Karlsen F, Kaye LK, Kirsh B, Lieberoth A, Markey P, Mills KL, Nielsen RK, Orben A, Poulsen A, Prause N, Prax P, Quandt T, Schimmenti A, Starcevic V, Stutman G, Turner NE, van Looy J, Przybylski AK | display-authors = 6 | title = A weak scientific basis for gaming disorder: Let us err on the side of caution | journal = Journal of Behavioral Addictions | volume = 7 | issue = 1 | pages = 1–9 | date = March 2018 | pmid = 29529886 | pmc = 6035022 | doi = 10.1556/2006.7.2018.19 | doi-access = free }} Bean et al. (2017) wrote that the GD category caters to false stereotypes of gamers as physically unfit and socially awkward, and that most gamers have no problems balancing their expected social roles outside games with those inside.{{Cite journal | vauthors = Bean AM, Nielsen RK, Van Rooij AJ, Ferguson CJ | date=2017 | title=Video Game Addiction: The Push To Pathologize Video Games | url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317335670 | journal=Professional Psychology: Research and Practice | volume=48 | issue=5 | pages=378–389 | doi=10.1037/pro0000150| s2cid=148978635 }}

In support of the GD category, Lee et al. (2017) agreed that there were major limitations of the existing research, but that this actually necessitates a standardized set of criteria, which would benefit studies more than self-developed instruments for evaluating problematic gaming.{{cite journal | vauthors = Lee SY, Choo H, Lee HK | title = Balancing between prejudice and fact for Gaming Disorder: Does the existence of alcohol use disorder stigmatize healthy drinkers or impede scientific research? | journal = Journal of Behavioral Addictions | volume = 6 | issue = 3 | pages = 302–305 | date = September 2017 | pmid = 28816518 | pmc = 5700722 | doi = 10.1556/2006.6.2017.047 | quote = The use of the proposed GD criteria in ICD-11 is expected to promote a higher quality of research than the current use of unstandardized, mostly self-developed instruments for evaluating problematic gaming. | doi-access = free }} Saunders et al. (2017) argued that gaming addiction should be in the ICD-11 just as much as gambling addiction and substance addiction, citing functional neuroimaging studies which show similar brain regions being activated, and psychological studies which show similar antecedents (risk factors).{{cite journal | vauthors = Saunders JB, Hao W, Long J, King DL, Mann K, Fauth-Bühler M, Rumpf HJ, Bowden-Jones H, Rahimi-Movaghar A, Chung T, Chan E, Bahar N, Achab S, Lee HK, Potenza M, Petry N, Spritzer D, Ambekar A, Derevensky J, Griffiths MD, Pontes HM, Kuss D, Higuchi S, Mihara S, Assangangkornchai S, Sharma M, Kashef AE, Ip P, Farrell M, Scafato E, Carragher N, Poznyak V | display-authors = 6 | title = Gaming disorder: Its delineation as an important condition for diagnosis, management, and prevention | journal = Journal of Behavioral Addictions | volume = 6 | issue = 3 | pages = 271–279 | date = September 2017 | pmid = 28816494 | pmc = 5700714 | doi = 10.1556/2006.6.2017.039 | doi-access = free }} Király and Demetrovics (2017) did not believe that a GD category would lock research into a confirmatory approach, noting that the ICD is regularly revised and characterized by permanent change. They wrote that moral panic around gamers does indeed exist, but that this is not caused by a formal diagnosis.{{cite journal | vauthors = Király O, Demetrovics Z | title = Inclusion of Gaming Disorder in ICD has more advantages than disadvantages | journal = Journal of Behavioral Addictions | volume = 6 | issue = 3 | pages = 280–284 | date = September 2017 | pmid = 28816495 | pmc = 5700721 | doi = 10.1556/2006.6.2017.046 | url = https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319166000 | quote = Both diagnostic manuals (i.e., the DSM and the ICD) are regularly revised, thus characterized by permanent change. (...) Moral panics and stigmatization related to video games are mostly induced and maintained by media scaremongering and the differences in mentality of the younger and older generations (i.e., generation gap) and not the existence of a formal diagnosis. | doi-access = free }} Rumpf et al. (2018) noted that stigmatization is a risk not specific to GD alone. They agreed that GD could be a coping strategy for an underlying disorder, but that in this debate, "comorbidity is more often the rule than the exception". For example, a person can have an alcohol dependence due to PTSD. In clinical practice, both disorders need to be diagnosed and treated. Rumpf et al. also warned that the lack of a GD category might jeopardize insurance reimbursement of treatments.{{harvtxt|Rumpf et al.|2018}}: "The argument of potential stigmatization is not specific to GD but relates to many other well-established mental disorders. (...) Health insurance companies and other financers of treatment may adopt the arguments raised by non-clinical researchers (e.g., "gaming is a normal lifestyle activity"); so that, those in need of treatment and with limited funds are unable to get professional help."

The DSM-5 (2013) features a similar category called Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD).DSM-5, [https://books.google.com/books?id=-JivBAAAQBAJ&q=%22internet+gaming+disorder%22 pp. 795-798]. However, due to the controversy over its definition and inclusion, it is not included in its main body of mental diagnoses, but in the additional chapter "Conditions for Further Study". Disorders in this chapter are meant to encourage research and are not intended to be officially diagnosed.DSM-5: "These proposed criteria sets are not intended for clinical use; only the criteria sets and disorders in Section II of DSM-5 are officially recognized and can be used for clinical purposes." ([https://books.google.com/books?id=-JivBAAAQBAJ&q=%22not%20intended%20for%20clinical%20use%22 p. 783]).

In May 2019, a number of media incorrectly reported that burn-out was newly added to the ICD-11.{{Cite news | first=Ryan | last=Prior | name-list-style = vanc | title=Burnout is an official medical diagnosis, World Health Organization says | url=https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/27/health/who-burnout-disease-trnd/index.html | date=28 May 2019 | work=CNN | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200329021152/https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/27/health/who-burnout-disease-trnd/index.html | archive-date=29 March 2020 | url-status=live}}{{Cite news | first=Suzanne | last=Degges-White | name-list-style = vanc | title=Burnout is Officially Classified as ICD-11 Syndrome | url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/lifetime-connections/201905/burnout-is-officially-classified-icd-11-syndrome | date=28 May 2019 | work=Psychology Today | archive-url=https://archive.today/20200111235123/https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/lifetime-connections/201905/burnout-is-officially-classified-icd-11-syndrome | archive-date=11 January 2020 | url-status=live}}{{Cite news | title=WHO adds burnout to ICD-11 | url=https://www.healio.com/psychiatry/practice-management/news/online/%7B0308f73d-7977-4efe-88c9-3b9fa2243ac2%7D/who-adds-burnout-to-icd-11 | date=28 May 2019 | work=Healio | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190528175528/https://www.healio.com/psychiatry/practice-management/news/online/%7B0308f73d-7977-4efe-88c9-3b9fa2243ac2%7D/who-adds-burnout-to-icd-11 | archive-date=28 May 2019 | url-status= live}}{{Cite news | first=Sara | last=Berg | name-list-style = vanc | title=WHO adds burnout to ICD-11. What it means for physicians | url=https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/physician-health/who-adds-burnout-icd-11-what-it-means-physicians | date=23 July 2019 | work=ama-assn.org | publisher=American Medical Association | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190728133139/https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/physician-health/who-adds-burnout-icd-11-what-it-means-physicians | archive-date=28 July 2019 | url-status=live}} In reality, burn-out is also in the ICD-10 ({{ICD10|Z73.0}}), albeit with a short, one-sentence definition only. The ICD-11 features a longer summary, and specifically notes that the category should only be used in an occupational context. Furthermore, it should only be applied when mood disorders ({{ICD11|6A60–6A8Z|76398729}}), Disorders specifically associated with stress ({{ICD11|6B40–6B4Z|991786158}}), and Anxiety or fear-related disorders ({{ICD11|6B00–6B0Z|1336943699}}) have been ruled out.

As with the ICD-10, burn-out is not in the mental disorders chapter, but in the chapter "Factors influencing health status or contact with health services", where it is coded {{ICD11|QD85}}. In response to media attention over its inclusion, the WHO emphasized that the ICD-11 does not define burn-out as a mental disorder or a disease, but as an occupational phenomenon that undermines a person's well-being in the workplace.{{Cite news | first=Megan | last=Brooks | name-list-style = vanc | title=Burnout Inclusion in ICD-11: Media Got It Wrong, WHO Says | url=https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/914077 | date=7 June 2019 | work=Medscape | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190821191807/https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/914077 | archive-date=21 August 2019 | url-status=dead}}{{Cite web | author=Mental Health: Evidence and Research team | title=Burn-out an "occupational phenomenon": International Classification of Diseases | url=https://www.who.int/mental_health/evidence/burn-out/en/ | date=28 May 2019 | website=who.int | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190529191450/https://www.who.int/mental_health/evidence/burn-out/en/ | archive-date=29 May 2019 | url-status=live}}

Conditions related to sexual health is a new chapter in the ICD-11. The WHO decided to put the sexual disorders in a separate chapter due to "the outdated mind/body split".{{Cite web | title=WAS statement about the WHO / ICD 11 | url=http://www.worldsexology.org/was-statement-about-the-who-icd-11/ | website=worldsexology.org | publisher=World Association for Sexual Health | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190813031421/http://www.worldsexology.org/was-statement-about-the-who-icd-11/ | archive-date=13 August 2019 | url-status=usurped}} A number of ICD-10 categories, including sex disorders, were based on a Cartesian separation of "organic" (physical) and "non-organic" (mental) conditions. As such, the sexual dysfunctions that were considered non-organic were included in the mental disorder chapter, while those that were considered organic were for the most part listed in the chapter on diseases of the genitourinary system. In the ICD-11, the brain and the body are seen as an integrate whole, with sexual dysfunctions considered to involve an interaction between physical and psychological factors. Thus, the organic/non-organic distinction was abolished.{{cite journal | vauthors = Reed GM, Drescher J, Krueger RB, Atalla E, Cochran SD, First MB, Cohen-Kettenis PT, Arango-de Montis I, Parish SJ, Cottler S, Briken P, Saxena S | display-authors = 6 | title = Disorders related to sexuality and gender identity in the ICD-11: revising the ICD-10 classification based on current scientific evidence, best clinical practices, and human rights considerations | journal = World Psychiatry | volume = 15 | issue = 3 | pages = 205–221 | date = October 2016 | pmid = 27717275 | pmc = 5032510 | doi = 10.1002/wps.20354 | quote = The ICD-10 classification of Sexual dysfunctions (F52) is based on a Cartesian separation of "organic" and "non-organic" conditions. | ref = {{harvid|Reed et al.|2016}}}}{{harvtxt|Reed et al.|2019}}: "The classification of sleep disorders in the ICD-10 relied on the now obsolete separation between organic and non-organic disorders (...) The ICD-10 also embodied a dichotomy between organic and non-organic in the realm of sexual dysfunctions"

Regarding general sexual dysfunction, the ICD-10 has three main categories: Lack or loss of sexual desire ({{ICD10|F52.0}}), Sexual aversion and lack of sexual enjoyment ({{ICD10|F52.1}}), and Failure of genital response ({{ICD10|F52.2}}). The ICD-11 replaces these with two main categories: Hypoactive sexual desire dysfunction ({{ICD11|HA00}}) and Sexual arousal dysfunction ({{ICD11|HA01}}). The latter has two subcategories: Female sexual arousal dysfunction ({{ICD11|HA01.0}}) and Male erectile dysfunction ({{ICD11|HA01.1}}). The difference between Hypoactive sexual desire dysfunction and Sexual arousal dysfunction is that in the former, there is a reduced or absent desire for sexual activity. In the latter, there is insufficient physical and emotional response to sexual activity, even though there still is a desire to engage in satisfying sex. The WHO acknowledged that there is an overlap between desire and arousal, but they are not the same. Management should focus on their distinct features.{{harvtxt|Reed et al.|2016}}: "Although there is significant comorbidity between desire and arousal dysfunction, the overlap of these conditions does not mean that they are one and the same; research suggests that management should be targeted toward their distinct features."

The ICD-10 contains the categories Vaginismus ({{ICD10|N94.2}}), Nonorganic vaginismus ({{ICD10|F52.5}}), Dyspareunia ({{ICD10|N94.1}}), and Nonorganic dyspareunia ({{ICD10|F52.6}}). As the WHO aimed to steer away from the aforementioned "outdated mind/body split", the organic and nonorganic disorders were merged. Vaginismus has been reclassified as Sexual pain-penetration disorder ({{ICD11|HA20}}). Dyspareunia ({{ICD11|GA12}}) has been retained. A related condition is Vulvodynia, which is in the ICD-9 ({{ICD9|625.7}}), but not in the ICD-10. It has been re-added to the ICD-11 ({{ICD11|GA34.02}}).

Sexual dysfunctions and Sexual pain-penetration disorder can be coded alongside a temporal qualifier, "lifelong" or "acquired", and a situational qualifier, "general" or "situational". Furthermore, the ICD-11 offers five aetiological qualifiers, or "Associated with..." categories, to further specify the diagnosis. For example, a woman who experiences sexual problems due to adverse effects of an SSRI antidepressant may be diagnosed with "Female sexual arousal dysfunction, acquired, generalised" ({{ICD11|HA01.02}}) combined with "Associated with use of psychoactive substance or medication" ({{ICD11|HA40.2}}).

Excessive sexual drive ({{ICD10|F52.7}}) from the ICD-10 has been reclassified as Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder (CSBD, {{ICD11|6C72}}) and listed under Impulse control disorders. The WHO was unwilling to overpathologize sexual behaviour, stating that having a high sexual drive is not necessarily a disorder, so long as these people do not exhibit impaired control over their behavior, significant distress, or impairment in functioning.{{cite journal | vauthors = Kraus SW, Krueger RB, Briken P, First MB, Stein DJ, Kaplan MS, Voon V, Abdo CH, Grant JE, Atalla E, Reed GM | display-authors = 6 | title = Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder in the ICD-11 | journal = World Psychiatry | volume = 17 | issue = 1 | pages = 109–110 | date = February 2018 | pmid = 29352554 | pmc = 5775124 | doi = 10.1002/wps.20499 | doi-access = free }} Kraus et al. (2018) noted that several people self-identify as "sex addicts", but on closer examination do not actually exhibit the clinical characteristics of a sexual disorder, although they may have other mental health problems, such as anxiety or depression. Experiencing shame and guilt about sex is not a reliable indicator of a sex disorder, Kraus et al. stated.

There was debate on whether CSBD should be considered a (behavioral) addiction. It has been claimed that neuroimaging shows overlap between compulsive sexual behavior and substance-use disorder through common neurotransmitter systems.{{cite journal | vauthors = Kraus SW, Voon V, Potenza MN | title = Should compulsive sexual behavior be considered an addiction? | journal = Addiction | volume = 111 | issue = 12 | pages = 2097–2106 | date = December 2016 | pmid = 26893127 | pmc = 4990495 | doi = 10.1111/add.13297 }} Nonetheless, it was ultimately decided to place the disorder in the Impulse control disorders group. Kraus et al. wrote that, for the ICD-11, "a relatively conservative position has been recommended, recognizing that we do not yet have definitive information on whether the processes involved in the development and maintenance of [CSBD] are equivalent to those observed in substance use disorders, gambling and gaming".

Paraphilic disorders, called Disorders of sexual preference in the ICD-10, have remained in the mental disorders chapter, although they have gray nodes in the sexual health chapter. The ICD-10 categories Fetishism ({{ICD10|F65.0}}) and Fetishistic transvestism ({{ICD10|F65.1}}) were removed because, if they do not cause distress or harm, they are not considered mental disorders. Frotteuristic disorder ({{ICD11|6D34}}) has been newly added.

Gender dysphoria of transgender people is called Gender incongruence in the ICD-11. In the ICD-10, the group Gender identity disorders ({{ICD10|F64}}) consisted of three main categories: Transsexualism ({{ICD10|F64.0}}), Dual-role transvestism ({{ICD10|F64.1}}), and Gender identity disorder of childhood ({{ICD10|F64.2}}). In the ICD-11, Dual-role transvestism was deleted due to a lack of public health or clinical relevance. Transsexualism was renamed Gender incongruence of adolescence or adulthood ({{ICD11|HA60}}), and Gender identity disorder of childhood was renamed Gender incongruence of childhood ({{ICD11|HA61}}).

In the ICD-10, the Gender identity disorders were placed in the mental disorders chapter, following what was customary at the time. Throughout the 20th century, both the ICD and the DSM approached transgender health from a psychopathological position, as transgender identity presents a discrepancy between someone's assigned sex and their gender identity. Since this may cause mental distress, it was consequently considered a mental disorder, with distress or discomfort being a core diagnostic feature.{{cite journal | vauthors = Drescher J, Cohen-Kettenis P, Winter S | title = Minding the body: situating gender identity diagnoses in the ICD-11 | journal = International Review of Psychiatry | volume = 24 | issue = 6 | pages = 568–77 | date = December 2012 | pmid = 23244612 | doi = 10.3109/09540261.2012.741575 | s2cid = 12805083 | url = https://www.academia.edu/12557295 | quote = Until the middle of the 20th century, with rare exceptions, transgender presentations were usually classified as psychopathological. }}{{cite journal | vauthors = Cohen-Kettenis PT, Pfäfflin F | title = The DSM diagnostic criteria for gender identity disorder in adolescents and adults | journal = Archives of Sexual Behavior | volume = 39 | issue = 2 | pages = 499–513 | date = April 2010 | pmid = 19838784 | doi = 10.1007/s10508-009-9562-y | hdl = 1871/34512 | s2cid = 16336939 | url = https://www.researchgate.net/publication/38019925 | quote = The DSM has consistently approached gender problems from the position that a divergence between the assigned sex or "the" physical sex (assuming that "physical sex" is a one-dimensional construct) and "the" psychological sex (gender) per se signals a psychiatric disorder. Although the terminology and place of the gender identity disorders in the DSM have varied in the different versions, the distress about one's assigned sex has remained, since DSM-III, the core feature of the diagnosis. | hdl-access = free }}{{Cite book | first=Anne A. | last=Lawrence | name-list-style = vanc | chapter=Gender Dysphoria | chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Q8hTDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA634 | editor-first1=Deborah C. | editor-last1= Beidel | editor-first2=B. Christopher | editor-last2= Frueh | date=2018 | title=Adult Psychopathology and Diagnosis | edition=8th | page=634 | publisher=John Wiley & Sons | isbn=978-1-119-38360-4 | quote=The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), for example, defined {{abbr|GD|Gender Dysphoria}} as "discomfort or distress that is caused by a discrepancy between a person's gender identity and that person's sex assigned at birth (and the associated gender role and/or primary and secondary sex characteristics)"}} In the 2000s and 2010s, this notion became increasingly challenged, as the idea of viewing transgender people as having a mental disorder was believed by some to be stigmatizing. It has been suggested that distress and dysfunction among transgender people should be more appropriately viewed as the result of social rejection, discrimination, and violence toward individuals with gender variant appearance and behavior.{{cite journal | vauthors = Robles R, Fresán A, Vega-Ramírez H, Cruz-Islas J, Rodríguez-Pérez V, Domínguez-Martínez T, Reed GM | title = Removing transgender identity from the classification of mental disorders: a Mexican field study for ICD-11 | journal = The Lancet. Psychiatry | volume = 3 | issue = 9 | pages = 850–9 | date = September 2016 | pmid = 27474250 | doi = 10.1016/S2215-0366(16)30165-1 | s2cid = 206196912 | url = https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(16)30165-1/fulltext }} Studies have shown transgender people to be at higher risk of developing mental health problems than other populations, but that health services aimed at transgender people are often insufficient or nonexistent. Since an official ICD code is usually needed to gain access to and reimbursement for gender-affirming care, the WHO found it ill-advised to remove transgender health from the ICD-11 altogether. It was therefore decided to transpose the concept from the mental disorders chapter to the new sexual health chapter.

The group related to coding antimicrobial resistance has been significantly expanded from ICD-10 to ICD-11.Compare {{ICD10|U82-U85}} in the ICD-10 to {{ICD11|1882742628|1882742628}} in the ICD-11. Also, the ICD-11 codes are more closely in line with the WHO's Global Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System (GLASS). Launched in October 2015, this project aims to track the growing worldwide resistance of malicious microbes (viruses, bacteria, fungi, and protozoa) against medication.{{Cite web | title=Global Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System (GLASS) | url=https://www.who.int/glass/en/ | website=who.int | publisher=World Health Organization | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180202171413/https://www.who.int/glass/en/ | archive-date=2 February 2018 | url-status=live}}

"Supplementary Chapter Traditional Medicine Conditions" is an additional chapter in the ICD-11, featuring concepts that are considered part of traditional medicine (TM). It initially consisted of one module, TM1. This module contains concepts that originated in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), also having long histories of development and use in Japan (Kampo), Korea (TKM), and Vietnam (TVM).{{Cite journal | first1=Seung-Hoon | last1=Choi | first2=Il-Moo | last2=Chang | title=A Milestone in Codifying the Wisdom of Traditional Oriental Medicine: TCM, Kampo, TKM, TVM-WHO International Standard Terminologies on Traditional Medicine in the Western Pacific Region | journal=Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine | volume=7 | issue=3 | pages=303–305 | date=5 December 2008 | doi=10.1093/ecam/nen083 | doi-access=free | pmid=19124553 | pmc=2887335}} In February 2025, a second module was added, TM2. This module features concepts related to Ayurveda, Siddha, and Unani.{{Harvp|Press release ICD-11 2025}}: "a new module covering traditional medicine conditions of Ayurveda and related traditional medicine systems, including Siddha and Unani".{{Cite press release | author= | date=9 January 2024 | title=Launch of the Traditional Medicine Morbidity codes of Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani | url=https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1994614 | location=Delhi, India | publisher=Press Information Bureau | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250407144338/https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1994614 | archive-date=7 April 2025 | url-status=live}}{{Cite news | first=Bindu Shajan | last=Perappadan | title=Traditional Indian medicine set to make a global debut, seeking inclusion in WHO's ICD-11 list | date=14 October 2023 | work=The Hindu | url=https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/health/traditional-indian-medicine-set-to-make-a-global-debut-seeking-inclusion-in-whos-icd-11-list/article67420378.ece | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231014125921/https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/health/traditional-indian-medicine-set-to-make-a-global-debut-seeking-inclusion-in-whos-icd-11-list/article67420378.ece | archive-date=14 October 2023 | url-status=live}} A third module, covering homeopathy, is planned, as well as a fourth module covering "other TM systems with independent diagnostic conditions".{{Cite journal | first1=William | last1=Morris | first2=Stacy | last2=Gomes | first3=Marilyn | last3=Allen | title=International classification of traditional medicine | journal=Global Advances in Health and Medicine | volume=1 | issue=4 | pages=38–41 | date=1 September 2012 | doi=10.7453/gahmj.2012.1.4.005 | doi-access=free | pmid=24278830 | pmc=3833512}} {{As of|2025|April}}, TM3 and TM4 have yet to be released.

Medical procedures that are labeled "traditional" are used all over the world. A 2008 survey by the WHO found that, in some Asian and African countries, as much as 80% of the population rely on traditional medicine for primary health care. In many developed countries, 70% to 80% of the population had used a form of alternative medicine at some point, such as acupuncture.{{Cite web | title=Traditional medicine fact sheet | format=Revised December 2008 | url=https://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs134/en | website=who.int | publisher=World Health Organization | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090129212351/http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs134/en | archive-date=29 January 2009 | url-status=dead}} Even though a number of countries created national classifications of TM, an international standardized system was missing. This complicated data collection, making it more difficult for the WHO to comprehensively monitor the usage, safety, efficacy, and costs of TM-practices.{{Cite press release | author=WHO | title=WHO to define information standards for traditional medicine | date=7 December 2010 | location=Tokyo, Japan | quote=Several countries have created national standards for the classification of traditional medicine but there is no international platform that allows the harmonization of data for clinical, epidemiological and statistical use. There is a need for this information to allow clinicians, researchers and policy-makers to comprehensively monitor safety, efficacy, use, spending and trends in health care}}{{Cite journal | first1=Bill | last1=Reddy | first2=Arthur Yin | last2=Fan | title=Incorporation of complementary and traditional medicine in ICD-11 | date=30 June 2022 | journal=BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | volume=21 | issue=6 | page=381 | doi=10.1186/s12911-022-01913-7 | doi-access=free | pmid=35773641 | quote=Although some countries have had national Traditional Medicine classification systems for many years, information from such systems has not been standardized nor been made available globally.| pmc=9248085 }}

During the 1970s, TM became a topic of increasing interest in Europe and North America.{{Cite thesis | first=Brenda Joanne | last=Foran | date=2007 | title=Medical pluralism and global health policy: The integration of traditional medicine in health care systems | url=https://researchers.westernsydney.edu.au/en/studentTheses/medical-pluralism-and-global-health-policy-the-integration-of-tra | degree=Doctor of Philosophy | publisher=Western Sydney University | page=54 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241202134504/https://researchers.westernsydney.edu.au/en/studentTheses/medical-pluralism-and-global-health-policy-the-integration-of-tra | archive-date=2 December 2024 | url-status=live}} On 19 May 1977, the WHO passed a resolution approving the initiation of TM-related training and research, which is considered the official beginning of the WHO's endorsement of TM.{{Citation | author=WHO | title=WHA30.49 – Promotion and development of training and research in traditional medicine | publisher=World Health Organisation | date=19 May 1977 | url=https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/93212/WHA30.49_eng.pdf | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250407181836/https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/93212/WHA30.49_eng.pdf | archive-date=7 April 2025 | url-status=live}}.{{Harvp|Foran|2007}}, p. 75: "The resolution of 1977 (WHA30.49), is usually considered the official commencement of WHO endorsement of TRM [Traditional Medicine], and related to the promotion and development of training and research". The declaration of Alma-Ata in 1978 mentioned the role of traditional practitioners in health care.{{Cite web | author=WHO | title=Traditional medicine | website=who.int | url=https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/frequently-asked-questions/traditional-medicine | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250407134128/https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/frequently-asked-questions/traditional-medicine | archive-date=7 April 2025 | url-status=live | ref={{harvid|WHO Traditional medicine info}}}}{{harvp|Foran|2007}}, p. 54: "The values of the Health For All goal (HFA), and the Primary Health Care (PHC) approach, were clearly stated in the joint WHO/UNICEF declaration made in Alma Ata, in 1978. It was revolutionary in both its language and implications."{{Harvp|Morris|Gomes|Allen|2012}}: "In 1978, the Alma-Ata Declaration on Primary Health Care called on countries and governments to include the practice of TM within their primary health-care approaches." In 1984, the WHO released the first version of the Standard Acupuncture Nomenclature.{{Citation | author=WHO | date=1984 | title=Standard Acupuncture Nomenclature | publisher=WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific | url=https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/206876/Standard_acupuncture_nomenclature_1984_eng.pdf | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250310165423/https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/206876/Standard_acupuncture_nomenclature_1984_eng.pdf | archive-date=10 March 2025 | url-status=live}} The WHO Traditional Medicine Strategy 2002–2005 outlined a plan to, among other things, integrate TM with national health care systems, expand the knowledge base about TM, and enhance its safety, efficacy, and quality.{{Citation | author=WHO | date=2002 | title=WHO Traditional Medicine Strategy 2002–2005 | chapter=Chapter 5: Strategy and plan of action 2002–2005 | page=43-48 | url=https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/67163/WHO_EDM_TRM_2002.1_eng.pdf | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231115152009/https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/67163/WHO_EDM_TRM_2002.1_eng.pdf | archive-date=15 November 2023 | url-status=live}}. The WHO International Standard Terminologies on Traditional Medicine in the Western Pacific Region (2007), or simply IST,{{efn|The abbreviation "IST" is used in official WHO documentation. Other abbreviations that have been used are "WHO-IST" and "WHO ISTT".}} defines terms related to qi, acupuncture, moxibustion, cupping, Chinese herbology, and other concepts within traditional Chinese medicine (TCM).{{Cite book | author=WHO Western Pacific Region | date=2007 | title=WHO International Standard Terminologies on Traditional Medicine in the Western Pacific Region | format=ebook | publisher=World Health Organisation | isbn=978-9290612483 | url=https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/206952/9789290612487_eng.pdf | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250207121024/https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/206952/9789290612487_eng.pdf | archive-date=7 February 2025 | url-status=live | ref={{harvid|IST|2007}}}}{{Cite journal | first=Seung-hoon | last=Choi | date=18 February 2020 | title=A Proposed Revision of the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision, Chapter 26 | journal=Integrative Cancer Therapies | volume=19 | doi=10.1177/1534735420908334 | doi-access=free | pmid=32070150 | pmc=7031786 | quote=Among the various standards in TM, such as acupuncture point locations, information, and clinical practice, the development of an international standard terminology (IST) was the very first step toward overall standardization of TM}} Elaborating on the IST,{{harvp|IST|2007}}: "Among the various standards in TRM, such as acupuncture point locations, information and clinical practice, the development of an international standard terminology (IST) is the very first step towards overall standardization of TRM. (p1) (...) The International Standard Terminologies project has been conducted in parallel with information standardization projects like international classification for traditional medicine (ICTM), thesaurus and clinical ontology in traditional medicine. The outcome of IST is the bases for each of these information standardization projects. (p6)"{{Cite web | first=Shin | last=Young-soo | date=6 February 2011 | title=Interventions Meeting for the International Classification of Traditional Medicine | website=who.int | url=https://www.who.int/westernpacific/newsroom/speeches/detail/interventions-meeting-for-the-international-classification-of-traditional-medicine | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250408142836/https://www.who.int/westernpacific/newsroom/speeches/detail/interventions-meeting-for-the-international-classification-of-traditional-medicine | archive-date=8 April 2025 | url-status=live | quote=The publication International Standard Terminologies on Traditional Medicine in the Western Pacific Region in 2008 being an important milestone for the region. These efforts have been acknowledged and are being taken to the global level through the global project for the International Classification of Traditional Medicine.}} the WHO developed the International Classification of Traditional Medicine (ICTM),{{efn|Because the scope of the WHO's efforts regarding the TM chapter was initially on traditional East Asian medicine,{{Harvp|WHO Traditional medicine info}}: "The scope of the chapter is currently covering traditional medicine conditions which originated in ancient China and are now commonly used in China, Japan, Korea and elsewhere around the world (Module I). This Traditional Medicine chapter is a formative step for the integration of Traditional Medicine conditions into a classification standard used in conventional medicine. (...) Development of a Module 2 which derived from Ayurveda and related Traditional Medicine diagnostic systems has started." the ICTM was at first called the "International Classification of Diseases of East Asian Traditional Medicine" (ICEATM).{{Cite web | author=WHO East-West Medical Research Institute | title=WHO Annual Report 2006 | url=http://kewmri.re.kr/08_english/04/05.php | archive-url=https://archive.today/20250404184522/http://kewmri.re.kr/08_english/04/05.php | archive-date=4 April 2025 | url-status=dead | quote=Proceedings of Informal Consultation on Development of International Classification of East Asian Traditional Medicine (ICEATM)}}{{Cite web | author=National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine | date=14 June 2006 | script-title=zh:国际传统医学信息标准化工作进展 | trans-title=Progress in international traditional medicine information standardization | language=zh | website=natcm.gov.cn | url=http://www.natcm.gov.cn/bangongshi/gongzuodongtai/2018-03-25/6520.html | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250404185739/http://www.natcm.gov.cn/bangongshi/gongzuodongtai/2018-03-25/6520.html | archive-date=4 April 2025 | url-status=dead | quote=经工作组讨论决定，将合作研制的传统医学疾病分类法命名为《东亚传统医学国际分类法》(International Classification Of East Asian Traditional Medicine，ICEATM)，该分类法以WHO传统医学国际标准术语作为分类的基础，内容包括疾病、证候及诊疗三部分，将按照WHO传统医学国际标准术语的编码体系搭建ICEATM的疾病、证候及诊疗分类结构。| trans-quote=After discussion and decision by the working group, the jointly developed classification of traditional medicine diseases will be named "International Classification Of East Asian Traditional Medicine" (ICEATM). This classification uses the WHO International Standard Terminology of Traditional Medicine as the basis for classification. Its contents include three parts: diseases, symptoms and diagnosis and treatment. The classification structure of diseases, symptoms and diagnosis and treatment of ICEATM will be built according to the coding system of the WHO International Standard Terminology of Traditional Medicine.}}{{Cite news | author=webmaster | date=28 July 2006 | script-title=ko:한의표준질병사인분류 개정안에 대한 의견 | trans-title=Opinions on the revision of the Korean Medicine Standard Classification of Diseases | language=ko | work=The Minjok Medicine News | url=https://www.mjmedi.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=9371 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250407204428/https://www.mjmedi.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=9371 | archive-date=7 April 2025 | url-status=live | quote=이와 관련하여 WHO 서태평양지역본부에서는 동아시아 전통의학의 국제질병분류를 위한 회의(Informal Consultation on Development of International classification of East Asian Traditional Medicine, 6-8 June 2006, Seoul, Korea)를 개최한바 있고, 한국·중국·일본·베트남·호주 등의 국가가 참여하여 International Classification on Traditional Medicine (ICTM)을 제정키로 합의하였다. | trans-quote=In relation to this, the WHO Western Pacific Regional Headquarters held the Informal Consultation on Development of the International Classification of Diseases of East Asian Traditional Medicine (June 6-8, 2006, Seoul, Korea), and countries including Korea, China, Japan, Vietnam, and Australia participated and agreed to establish the International Classification on Traditional Medicine (ICTM).}}{{Cite magazine | first=Choi | last=Seung-Hoon | date=March 2007 | script-title=ko:침술 등 전통의학의 표준화 추진하는 WHO | trans-title=WHO pursues standardization of traditional medicine, including acupuncture | language=ko | magazine=나라경제 (National Economy) | publisher=Korea Development Institute | volume=196 | pages=86–88 | url=https://eiec.kdi.re.kr/publish/naraView.do?nara_yymm=200703&fcode=00002000040000100010&cidx=5529&sel_year=2007&sel_month=03 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250407201039/https://eiec.kdi.re.kr/publish/naraView.do?nara_yymm=200703&fcode=00002000040000100010&cidx=5529&sel_year=2007&sel_month=03 | archive-date=7 April 2025 | url-status=live | quote=최근 완성단계에 들어간 전통의학의 표준용어를 바탕으로 전통의학 국제 질병분류(International Classification of East Asian Traditional Medicine ; ICEATM) 과제가 진행되고 있다. | trans-quote=Based on the standard terms of traditional medicine, which have recently entered the final stage of completion, the International Classification of Diseases of East Asian Traditional Medicine (ICEATM) project is in progress.}}{{Cite news | author=Admin | date=25 April 2007 | script-title=ko:WPRO의 전통의학 전략과 활동 下 | trans-title=WPRO's Traditional Medicine Strategy and Activities | language=ko | work=Akom News | url=https://www.akomnews.com/bbs/board.php?bo_table=news&wr_id=28931 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250407202633/https://www.akomnews.com/bbs/board.php?bo_table=news&wr_id=28931 | archive-date=7 April 2025 | url-status=live | quote=최근 완성단계에 들어간 전통의학의 표준용어를 바탕으로 전통의학 국제질병분류(International Classification of East Asian Traditional Medicine: ICEATM) 과제가 진행되고 있다. | trans-quote=The International Classification of Diseases for Traditional Medicine (ICEATM) project is underway, based on the standard terminology for traditional medicine, which has recently entered the final stage.}} In 2006, the classification was officially named ICTM to reflect the intention that its scope was international, not just (East) Asian.{{Cite report | first1=Seung-hoon | last1=Choi | first2=Kenji | last2=Watanabe | first3=Bumsang | last3=Shim | first4=Haidong | last4=Zhu | first5=Rosemary | last5=Roberts | title=International Classification of Traditional Medicine: ICTM / Proposal to WHO-FIC Family Development Committee for inclusion of ICTM in the World Health Organization Family of International Classifications | url=https://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/meetings/2006meeting/WHOFIC2006%20-%20C408%20-%20ICTM%20proposal.pdf | publisher=World Health Organization | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231011191248/https://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/meetings/2006meeting/WHOFIC2006%20-%20C408%20-%20ICTM%20proposal.pdf | archive-date=11 October 2023 | url-status=dead | quote=This paper outlines changes from the first (April 2006) proposal to WHO-FIC for an International Classification of East Asian Tradition Medicine. In summary, the changes are as follows: • Name to be changed to International Classification of Traditional Medicine (ICTM) to reflect the intention that in future the classification be international. The first publication will represent the initial East Asian contribution to ICTM}} Another term that is sometimes used is "International Classification of Traditional Medicine – China, Japan, Korea" (ICTM-CJK).{{Cite journal | first1=Peng-fei | last1=Gao | first2=Kenji | last2=Watanabe | date=November 2011 | title=Introduction of the World Health Organization project of the International Classification of Traditional Medicine | journal=Journal of Chinese Integrative Medicine | volume=9 | issue=11 | pages= 1161–1164 | doi=10.3736/jcim20111101 | doi-access=free | pmid=22088596}}}} the contents of which form Chapter 26 of the ICD-11.{{Harvp|Reddy|Fan|2022}}: "In 2004, the WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific began an effort to standardize the 361 acupuncture point locations, terminology and diagnosis that led to the development of the first international standard terminology (IST) for Traditional Medicine. (…) These efforts, along with the development of the International Classification of Traditional Medicine (ICTM), formed the foundation of the development of Chapter 26 in ICD-11."{{Cite journal | first=Kenji | last=Watanabe | date=August 2018 | title=Traditional Medicine Chapter in WHO ICD-11 | journal=Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies | volume=11 | issue=4 | pages=170–171 | doi=10.1016/j.jams.2018.08.017 | doi-access=free | quote=The World Health Organization WHO has been developing an International Classification of Traditional Medicine (ICTM) which will be linked to ICD-11 through inclusion of a new ICD-11 Chapter on Traditional Medicine (TM) conditions.}}

The decision to include TM in the ICD-11 has been criticized, because it is often alleged to be pseudoscience. Editorials by Nature and Scientific American admitted that some TM techniques and herbs have shown effectiveness or potential, but that others are pointless, or even outright harmful. They wrote that the inclusion of the TM-chapter is at odds with the scientific, evidence-based methods usually employed by the WHO. Both editorials accused the government of China of pushing the WHO to incorporate traditional Chinese medicine, a global, billion-dollar market in which China plays a leading role.{{Cite journal | date=5 June 2019 | title=The World Health Organization's decision about traditional Chinese medicine could backfire | department=Editorial | journal=Nature | volume=570 | issue=5 | page=5 | doi=10.1038/d41586-019-01726-1 | doi-access=free | pmid=31165792 | bibcode=2019Natur.570Q...5.}}{{Cite journal | author=((The Editors)) | date=1 April 2019 | title=The World Health Organization Gives the Nod to Traditional Chinese Medicine. Bad Idea | url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-world-health-organization-gives-the-nod-to-traditional-chinese-medicine-bad-idea/ | journal=Scientific American | volume=320 | issue=4 | page=6 | archive-url=https://archive.today/20200406145913/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-world-health-organization-gives-the-nod-to-traditional-chinese-medicine-bad-idea/ | archive-date=6 April 2020 | url-status=live}} In Forbes, Steven Salzberg wrote: "There's no legitimate reason to use terms such as "Chinese" medicine, or American, Italian, Spanish, Indian, or [insert your favorite nationality] medicine. There's just medicine – if a treatment works, then it's medicine. If something doesn't work, then it's not medicine and we shouldn't sell it to people with false claims."{{Cite news | first=Steven | last=Salzberg | date=1 October 2018 | title=WHO Endorses Traditional Chinese Medicine. Expect Deaths To Rise | work=Forbes | url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2018/10/01/who-endorses-tcm-expect-deaths-to-rise/ | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181001133153/https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2018/10/01/who-endorses-tcm-expect-deaths-to-rise/ | archive-date=1 October 2018 | url-status=live}} The WHO has stated that the TM chapter "is neither judging nor endorsing the scientific validity of any Traditional Medicine practice", and that its inclusion is primarily intended for statistical purposes, aiding research and evaluation. The ICD-11 Reference Guide recommends the TM-codes "be used in conjunction with the Western Medicine concepts of ICD-11 chapters 1-25".{{Cite web | author=WHO | title=1.5 Traditional Medicine | url=https://icdcdn.who.int/icd11referenceguide/en/html/index.html#traditional-medicine | website=ICD-11 Reference Guide}}

Other notable changes in the ICD-11 include:

• Stroke is now classified as a neurological disorder instead of a disease of the circulatory system.{{cite journal | title=ICD-11 | journal=The Lancet | volume=393 | issue=10188 | page=275 | department=Editorial | date=June 2019 | pmid=31180012 | doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31205-X | doi-access=free | last1=The Lancet }}
• Allergies are now coded under diseases of the immune system.
• In the ICD-10, a distinction was made between Sleep disorders ({{ICD10|G47}}), included in nervous system diseases chapter, and Nonorganic sleep disorders ({{ICD10|F51}}), included in the mental disorders chapter. In the ICD-11, they are merged and placed into a new chapter called sleep-wake disorders, since the separation between organic (physical) and non-organic (mental) disorders is considered obsolete.
• "Supplementary section for functioning assessment" is an additional chapter that provides codes for use in the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0),{{cite web |title=WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) |url=https://www.who.int/classifications/icf/whodasii/en/ |website=who.int |access-date=31 August 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230510082231/https://www.who.int/classifications/international-classification-of-functioning-disability-and-health/who-disability-assessment-schedule |archive-date=10 May 2023 |language=en}} the model disability survey (MDS),{{cite web |title=Disability: Model disability survey |url=https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/model-disability-survey |website=www.who.int |access-date=31 August 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240824062228/https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/model-disability-survey |archive-date=24 August 2024 |language=en}} and the ICF.

{{notelist}}

{{reflist|2}}

• [https://www.youtube.com/@WHOICD-11 Official YouTube channel]
• [https://www.who.int/standards/classifications WHO-FIC Classifications and Terminologies]
• [https://icd.who.int/dev11/ WHO-FIC Maintenance Platform]
• [https://icd.who.int/ ICD-11 Home Page]
• [https://icd.who.int/browse/latest-release/mms/en ICD-11 for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics browser (ICD-11 for MMS)]

{{Medical classification}}

Category:International Classification of Diseases