Neurosis vs OCD: Obsessional Neurosis and Modern Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 30, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Neurosis and obsessive-compulsive disorder are not equivalent modern diagnoses. Neurosis is a historical psychiatric and psychoanalytic umbrella term whose meaning changed across periods and schools. Obsessional neurosis is one historically important concept within that history, especially in psychoanalytic and early psychiatric literature. Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), by contrast, is a current clinical diagnosis with defined diagnostic requirements in modern classification systems. The historical terms helped shape the genealogy of OCD, but they cannot be substituted for the current diagnosis.
The clearest modern answer is therefore: obsessional neurosis and OCD overlap historically and phenomenologically, particularly around intrusive obsessional thoughts, repetitive acts, doubt, checking, contamination concerns, rituals, and attempts to neutralize distress. Yet the concepts were built for different classificatory systems and often rested on different causal theories. Current diagnosis should be made using current criteria and differential diagnosis, not by translating an old label word for word into a contemporary one. The National Institute of Mental Health describes OCD as a long-lasting disorder involving obsessions, compulsions, or both that are time-consuming, distressing, or disruptive to daily life.
This article owns the comparison between historical neurosis language and modern OCD. For the full modern clinical definition, symptoms, diagnosis, causes, and treatment of OCD, use the English Hub’s OCD clinical pillar. For conditions that can resemble OCD, use the dedicated OCD differential diagnosis guide.
Neurosis vs OCD: the short answer
If someone asks whether neurosis is the same as OCD, the answer is no. “Neurosis” historically covered a much wider territory than obsessive-compulsive symptoms. Depending on the period, it could include anxiety, phobic, hysterical, depressive, somatic, obsessional, and other presentations. The English Hub’s Types of Neurosis: Historical Categories and Their Modern Equivalents shows how unstable that umbrella was across classification systems.
If someone asks whether obsessional neurosis is the old name for OCD, the answer is closer but still requires qualification. Obsessional neurosis is part of the conceptual ancestry of modern OCD. Historical descriptions sometimes resemble current OCD closely. For example, a study comparing Emil Kraepelin’s early-twentieth-century “obsessive neurosis” with DSM-5 found substantial overlap in obsessive ideas, compulsive acts, insight, and several differential-diagnostic observations. The authors also documented important differences in classification and theory. See Steinberg, Carius, and Fontenelle (2017).
In psychoanalysis, “obsessional neurosis” can mean more than a symptom cluster. In Freud’s framework it was embedded in a theory of unconscious conflict, defense, symptom formation, and character. A current DSM-5-TR or ICD-11 diagnosis of OCD does not require acceptance of that theory. That difference in what the label is designed to do is one of the main reasons the two terms should not be treated as synonyms.
Three terms that should be kept separate
Neurosis: the historical umbrella
Neurosis is a historical category with several lives. In eighteenth- and nineteenth-century medicine it could refer broadly to disorders attributed to the nervous system without the meaning later given to the word by psychoanalysis. In twentieth-century psychiatry, especially in psychoanalytically influenced classifications, it became an umbrella for conditions characterized in very different ways from psychoses and organic disorders. The precise content depended on the manual, country, school, and period.
The crucial point for a modern reader is classificatory status. Neurosis is not a single diagnosis in DSM-5-TR, and ICD-11 does not organize mental disorders under one current neurosis umbrella. The change was not merely a vocabulary update. It involved new diagnostic boundaries, explicit criteria, reorganized disorder families, and a move away from requiring a shared psychodynamic etiology for an entire group. For the edition-specific status, see Is Neurosis Still a Diagnosis? DSM-5-TR, ICD-11, and Modern Psychiatry.
Obsessional neurosis: a historical and psychoanalytic concept
Obsessional neurosis is a narrower historical term. Ulrike May-Tolzmann’s history of the concept traces the published appearance of Freud’s German term Zwangsneurose to the 1890s and notes that Freud later presented obsessional neurosis as a nosographic innovation. Her analysis also shows that the surrounding German-language psychiatric literature already contained related descriptions and debates. See May-Tolzmann (1998).
Freud’s best-known clinical discussion is the 1909 case commonly called the “Rat Man,” published as Notes Upon a Case of Obsessional Neurosis. In that tradition, obsessional symptoms were interpreted through a theory of conflict, defense, ambivalence, repression, displacement, undoing, isolation, and the meaningful organization of symptoms within the person’s psychic life. Those propositions belong to psychoanalytic theory and its history. They are not the diagnostic requirements by which DSM-5-TR or ICD-11 identifies OCD.
That distinction matters because a theoretical construct can include assumptions about mechanisms and personality organization that are not required for a descriptive clinical diagnosis. Two clinicians could agree that a patient meets current OCD criteria while disagreeing profoundly about psychodynamic interpretation.
OCD: a current diagnosis
Obsessive-compulsive disorder is a contemporary clinical diagnosis. Modern descriptions center on obsessions, compulsions, or both, together with clinically significant burden and the need to consider exclusions and differential diagnoses. The NIMH OCD overview describes obsessions as recurring, unwanted thoughts, urges, or mental images and compulsions as repetitive behaviors or mental acts; it also emphasizes that symptoms can consume time, cause distress, and interfere with daily life.
DSM-5 created a separate chapter for obsessive-compulsive and related disorders rather than classifying OCD simply as an anxiety disorder. The American Psychiatric Association’s DSM fact-sheet collection documents this organization, and DSM-5-TR is the current text revision of that manual. The APA also maintains approved DSM-5-TR criteria and text updates.
ICD-11 likewise places OCD within the grouping “Obsessive-compulsive and related disorders.” The World Health Organization’s ICD-11 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Requirements provides the current international clinical framework. Current classification therefore treats OCD as its own disorder in a defined modern grouping, not as a subtype of one undifferentiated neurosis diagnosis.
Where obsessional neurosis and modern OCD genuinely overlap
The historical connection is real. It should neither be erased nor exaggerated. Many historical descriptions recognized experiences that remain central to OCD phenomenology: intrusive ideas that recur despite resistance, doubt, ritualized acts, checking, washing, counting, ordering, mental neutralization, fear of causing harm, and the distress created by thoughts or impulses that feel difficult to control.
Kraepelin’s descriptions are especially useful because they make the overlap visible without requiring a psychoanalytic model. Steinberg and colleagues found that his “obsessive neurosis” included obsessive ideas, compulsive acts, symptom combinations, differences in insight, and several distinctions from other psychiatric presentations that resemble parts of modern OCD assessment. Historical similarity is therefore not limited to Freud’s theory; it also appears in descriptive psychiatry.
A broader historical survey of obsessive-compulsive and related disorders notes that Pierre Janet described obsessions and compulsive rituals and that twentieth-century behavioral approaches later transformed treatment by focusing on learning processes and ritual reduction. See the comprehensive historical-clinical survey. This genealogy helps explain why modern OCD inherits observations from several traditions rather than descending intact from one single historical category.
Why obsessional neurosis and OCD are not synonyms
1. Their scope is different
Modern OCD is defined as a particular disorder. Obsessional neurosis has been used in ways that sometimes encompassed more than the current OCD symptom set, including broader ideas about personality, character, conflict, defensive style, anxiety, and the organization of symptoms. Conversely, some people who meet current OCD criteria would not necessarily fit a historical psychoanalytic formulation of obsessional neurosis as a structure or neurosis type.
2. Their explanatory commitments are different
A modern diagnostic manual is primarily classificatory. It describes diagnostic requirements and boundaries without making one historical psychodynamic explanation mandatory. Freud’s obsessional neurosis was theory-laden: symptoms were interpreted as formations with specific psychological functions within a model of unconscious conflict. Treating the terms as synonyms silently imports one model’s causal assumptions into another model’s descriptive diagnosis.
3. Their historical boundaries changed
The boundary around obsessional phenomena shifted repeatedly. Nineteenth-century French psychiatry used concepts such as monomania and other changing categories. Janet’s psychasthenia included obsessions, phobias, feelings of incompleteness, depersonalization, and a theory of reduced psychological tension. A historical review by Lanteri-Laura (1994) shows that psychasthenia later became ambiguous and was sometimes treated as equivalent to obsessional neurosis or to obsessional personality, even though those equivalences collapse distinct constructs.
4. Current OCD requires current diagnostic boundaries
The presence of intrusive thoughts, repetitive behavior, perfectionism, rumination, checking, or anxiety alone does not establish OCD. Similar phenomena can occur in generalized anxiety, depressive disorders, body dysmorphic disorder, hoarding disorder, illness anxiety, autism, psychotic disorders, tic disorders, eating disorders, trauma-related conditions, obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, and other contexts. Current diagnosis depends on the pattern, function, duration, burden, exclusions, and differential diagnosis. That territory belongs to the OCD differential diagnosis article.
5. Personality language is not interchangeable with OCD
Historical writings often linked obsessional symptoms with an “obsessional character” or personality style. Modern classification separates OCD from obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. A person can have OCD without an obsessive-compulsive personality pattern, can have a personality disorder without OCD, can have both, or can have neither. The old literature’s tendency to move between symptom, neurosis, and character language is precisely why historical terminology must be translated cautiously.
How the DSM changed the relationship between neurosis and OCD
DSM-I and DSM-II: psychoneurotic and neurosis-era classification
American psychiatric classification once used neurosis language explicitly. Historical reviews of DSM nosology describe DSM-I as containing a psychoneurotic section and DSM-II, published in 1968, as using a neuroses section. Edward Shorter’s history of psychiatric nosology and the DSM describes this shift, while Lake and Hurwitz reproduce the DSM-II neurosis categories, including obsessive-compulsive neurosis, in a critical historical review.
The important wording is historical: DSM-II’s “obsessive-compulsive neurosis” was a category within the diagnostic architecture of 1968. It should not be projected forward as though DSM-5-TR still uses the same category under a new name. Manuals changed their structure, criteria, assumptions, and neighboring diagnoses.
DSM-III: a major reorganization
DSM-III, published in 1980, introduced explicit diagnostic criteria, a multiaxial system, and an approach intended to be more neutral about etiology. The APA history of DSM identifies these as major innovations. The place of “neurosis” itself became a major controversy. Bayer and Spitzer’s historical account, Neurosis, psychodynamics, and DSM-III, documents the dispute over psychodynamic formulations and the inclusion of neurosis in the nomenclature.
This transition helps explain why “obsessional neurosis became OCD” is too simple. The later diagnosis emerged through a larger reconstruction of psychiatric classification. A theory-heavy umbrella was replaced by more explicitly described categories that could be studied, differentiated, and revised separately.
DSM-5 and DSM-5-TR: OCD in its own disorder family
In DSM-5, OCD was placed in the obsessive-compulsive and related disorders chapter rather than the anxiety disorders chapter. DSM-5-TR retains the contemporary disorder framework while revising text, references, codes, and selected criteria across the manual. The modern diagnosis is therefore not “neurosis, obsessive type.” It is obsessive-compulsive disorder within the DSM-5-TR classification.
How ICD-10 and ICD-11 should be read
ICD-10 retained neurotic language at the block level
ICD-10 is an important source of confusion because it grouped F40–F48 under the heading “Neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders,” and OCD appeared as F42 within that block. The WHO ICD-10 clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines show that classification directly. That does not mean every historical psychoanalytic meaning of “neurosis” was built into the ICD-10 diagnosis of OCD. It means that ICD-10 retained neurotic terminology in the architecture of that edition.
ICD-11 uses a different architecture
ICD-11 no longer places OCD inside an F40–F48 “neurotic” block. It organizes OCD in “Obsessive-compulsive and related disorders,” with contemporary diagnostic requirements and specifiers. When discussing international classification, the version therefore matters: an ICD-10 statement about F42 and the old block heading cannot be presented as the current ICD-11 structure.
Does obsessional neurosis map onto OCD today?
The most defensible answer is: often partly, sometimes strongly, but never automatically. A historical case described as obsessional neurosis may contain a symptom pattern that would now prompt assessment for OCD. Historical descriptions of recurrent unwanted ideas and ritualized acts can look strikingly familiar. But a retrospective one-to-one conversion is not justified simply by the label.
There are at least four reasons. First, historical diagnostic criteria were different or absent. Second, the concept may have included theoretical mechanisms that current diagnosis does not require. Third, other conditions that are now separated from OCD were sometimes mixed into older categories. Fourth, the historical record may not contain enough information about duration, impairment, medical or substance factors, comorbidity, or differential diagnosis to assign a current diagnosis responsibly.
For the same reason, a person who encounters “obsessional neurosis” in an old medical record, psychoanalytic text, or family document should read it as evidence of the clinician’s historical framework, not as a guaranteed DSM-5-TR or ICD-11 diagnosis. The record can be clinically informative, but current assessment uses current definitions.
What about psychasthenia?
Psychasthenia is another historical concept frequently pulled into the OCD genealogy. Pierre Janet’s early-twentieth-century formulation included obsessions and phobias, but it also included experiences such as incompleteness, depersonalization, and a broader theoretical account of diminished psychological tension and impaired “reality function.” This makes psychasthenia historically relevant to obsessional phenomena without making it a simple old synonym for OCD.
Lanteri-Laura’s historical review notes that later usage blurred the term, sometimes equating psychasthenia with obsessional neurosis and sometimes with obsessional personality. That history illustrates a recurring problem in retrospective diagnosis: one old word may have covered several phenomena that contemporary classification now separates.
Neurosis, anxiety, and OCD: another common source of confusion
Many people assume that if neurosis was historically associated with anxiety, and OCD often involves anxiety, then OCD must simply be an anxiety neurosis. Current classification is more specific. Anxiety can be prominent in OCD, and compulsions can function as attempts to reduce distress or prevent feared outcomes. But DSM-5 separated OCD from the anxiety disorders chapter, and ICD-11 likewise places it in the obsessive-compulsive and related disorders grouping.
This does not imply that anxiety is irrelevant to OCD. It means that classification is based on a broader pattern of phenomenology, course, relationships to other disorders, and diagnostic utility. The modern OCD concept includes repetitive thoughts and behaviors that cannot be reduced to “anxiety” alone.
Intrusive thoughts are not the same thing as obsessional neurosis
Intrusive thoughts are a psychological phenomenon, not a diagnosis by themselves. Unwanted thoughts can occur in the general population and across several clinical conditions. In OCD, obsessions form part of a larger diagnostic pattern and are evaluated together with compulsions, distress, time consumption, impairment, insight, avoidance, and differential diagnosis.
Historical psychoanalytic discussion of an obsessional symptom asks a different kind of question: how the symptom is understood within a theory of conflict, defense, and meaning. A person does not become a case of “obsessional neurosis” simply because an intrusive thought occurs, and a person does not meet current OCD criteria merely because the content of a thought is disturbing.
Compulsions, rituals, and neutralizing behavior
The visible ritual is another area where historical and modern language can appear deceptively similar. Repeated washing, checking, ordering, counting, reassurance seeking, mental reviewing, or silent rituals may be part of OCD, but similar-looking behavior can have different functions in other conditions. Modern assessment asks what precedes the behavior, what it is intended to prevent or neutralize, how rigidly it is performed, how much time it consumes, how distressing interruption is, and what other symptoms are present.
This functional emphasis is clinically important because treatment is not chosen from the surface behavior alone. A repetitive act driven by an OCD obsession, an autistic routine, a tic-related urge, a psychotic belief, an eating-disorder rule, or a personality style can require different formulations even if an outside observer initially calls all of them “compulsive.”
What the historical term can still tell us
Historical terminology remains useful when it is treated as history rather than as a hidden modern code. “Obsessional neurosis” tells us that clinicians and theorists recognized a recurring cluster of obsessional and ritual phenomena long before current manuals. It also records how those phenomena were interpreted in different intellectual traditions.
The concept is especially valuable for the history of psychiatry and psychoanalysis because it preserves disagreements that modern shorthand can conceal. Freud, Janet, Kraepelin, later behaviorists, and contemporary diagnostic systems did not merely use different words for one unchanged object. They organized observations differently, proposed different mechanisms, drew different boundaries, and asked different questions.
That is why the most accurate genealogy of OCD is plural. Modern OCD draws on a long clinical record, but it is a current diagnostic construct with its own criteria and evidence base.
Treatment implications: treat current OCD as current OCD
The historical comparison has a practical consequence. If a person meets current criteria for OCD, evidence-based OCD treatment should not be delayed because an older source calls the condition “obsessional neurosis.” Current treatment recommendations are built from modern clinical trials, systematic reviews, and guideline processes.
For example, the NICE guideline for OCD recommends cognitive behavioral therapy that includes exposure and response prevention (ERP) and, depending on severity and circumstances, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or combined treatment. A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis of ERP synthesized 30 studies and 39 randomized controlled trials and found ERP effective for OCD symptoms.
A broad modern review in Nature Reviews Disease Primers also summarizes OCD as a heterogeneous disorder with established psychological and pharmacological treatments. See Stein et al. (2019). These treatment findings belong to modern OCD evidence. They should not be generalized backward to every historical condition once called a neurosis.
Likewise, a historical psychoanalytic theory may remain important for intellectual history or for clinicians working within a psychodynamic tradition, but it does not replace evidence-based assessment and treatment selection for a current OCD diagnosis.
How to interpret an old diagnosis of obsessional neurosis today
If an old chart says “obsessional neurosis,” start by asking when and where the diagnosis was made and which classification or theoretical tradition the clinician was using. A label from DSM-II-era American psychiatry, a psychoanalytic case formulation, a European psychiatric text, and a later informal use of the phrase may not carry identical meaning.
Next, separate the label from the described phenomena. Does the record mention intrusive thoughts, rituals, checking, washing, counting, doubt, avoidance, reassurance, guilt, phobias, depressive symptoms, somatic concerns, personality traits, dissociation, or psychotic symptoms? Those details are often more useful for historical-to-modern interpretation than the umbrella word itself.
Finally, keep retrospective interpretation distinct from current diagnosis. A historical record can suggest a possible modern analogue, but only a present-day clinical assessment can determine whether a living person meets current criteria now.
Common misconceptions
“OCD used to be called neurosis, so neurosis means OCD.”
Too broad. OCD has a historical relationship to obsessional or obsessive-compulsive neurosis, but neurosis covered many other conditions as well. The umbrella and one of its historical subtypes are not interchangeable.
“Obsessional neurosis is simply the outdated DSM name for OCD.”
Incomplete. DSM-II did use obsessive-compulsive neurosis, but “obsessional neurosis” also belongs to psychoanalytic and European conceptual histories that cannot be reduced to one manual’s label. Freud’s term and theory predate DSM by decades.
“If someone has obsessive thoughts, they have OCD.”
No. Intrusive or repetitive thoughts occur in many contexts. OCD diagnosis depends on the whole symptom pattern, burden, exclusions, and differential diagnosis.
“OCD is still an anxiety disorder because compulsions reduce anxiety.”
Anxiety is often clinically important in OCD, but DSM-5/DSM-5-TR and ICD-11 classify OCD in obsessive-compulsive and related disorders rather than in the main anxiety or fear-related grouping.
“Psychoanalytic obsessional neurosis has been scientifically confirmed as the mechanism of OCD.”
That overstates the evidence. Psychoanalytic accounts are historically influential theoretical formulations. Modern OCD research investigates multiple psychological, neurobiological, developmental, and learning-related mechanisms. Current diagnosis does not require a Freudian causal explanation.
Practical interpretation for a modern reader
Use “neurosis” as a historical umbrella unless you are explicitly discussing a historical manual or theoretical tradition. Use “obsessional neurosis” when reconstructing a historical or psychoanalytic concept. Use “obsessive-compulsive disorder” when referring to the current clinical diagnosis.
When translating between periods, describe the relationship rather than declaring identity. Phrases such as “historical precursor,” “partly overlapping construct,” “earlier classification,” or “conceptual ancestor” are usually more accurate than “the old name for” unless the source and period genuinely support a direct nomenclature change.
For a modern clinical question—whether symptoms meet criteria, what else could explain them, or which treatment is indicated—move from historical terminology to the current OCD framework and differential diagnosis.
Frequently asked questions
Is neurosis the same as OCD?
No. Neurosis was a broad historical umbrella used for many kinds of psychological disturbance. OCD is a specific current diagnosis. Obsessional or obsessive-compulsive neurosis is historically related to OCD, but the umbrella term neurosis is much wider.
Is obsessional neurosis the old name for OCD?
It is one important historical predecessor, but “old name” is too simple. The term was used within psychoanalytic and psychiatric frameworks that could include theoretical assumptions and boundaries different from modern OCD.
Did Freud invent obsessional neurosis?
Freud played a major role in establishing and theorizing Zwangsneurose, usually translated as obsessional neurosis. May-Tolzmann’s historical study identifies its published use by Freud in the 1890s and examines his claim of nosographic innovation, while also situating it among earlier and contemporary psychiatric descriptions.
What did DSM-II call OCD?
DSM-II, published in 1968, used the category “obsessive-compulsive neurosis” within its neuroses section. That historical category should not be treated as if it were the current DSM-5-TR wording or structure.
When did DSM stop using neurosis as a major organizing concept?
The decisive reorganization occurred with DSM-III, published in 1980. DSM-III introduced explicit diagnostic criteria and an approach intended to be more neutral about etiology; the role of neurosis in the new nomenclature was the subject of documented controversy.
Is OCD a neurosis in ICD-10?
ICD-10 placed OCD at F42 inside the F40–F48 block titled “Neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders.” That statement is specific to ICD-10 architecture. It should not be carried over to ICD-11, which uses a different grouping.
Where is OCD in ICD-11?
ICD-11 places OCD within “Obsessive-compulsive and related disorders.” This is the current WHO classification framework.
Is psychasthenia the same as OCD?
No. Psychasthenia is a historical construct associated especially with Pierre Janet. It included obsessional phenomena but also broader symptoms and a distinct theory. Later authors sometimes blurred it with obsessional neurosis or personality concepts, which is exactly why one-to-one translation is unreliable.
Can intrusive thoughts occur without OCD?
Yes. Intrusive thoughts are not unique to OCD and can also occur outside mental disorders. Clinical significance depends on the full pattern, including distress, impairment, compulsions or neutralizing behavior, context, and differential diagnosis.
Does an old diagnosis of obsessional neurosis prove someone has OCD today?
No. It can indicate a historically relevant symptom pattern, but current diagnosis requires current criteria and current clinical assessment. Historical labels are evidence about past classification, not automatic present-day diagnoses.
Does treatment for historical obsessional neurosis equal modern OCD treatment?
Treatment traditions changed with classification and evidence. For current OCD, evidence-based care commonly includes CBT with ERP, medication such as an SSRI when appropriate, or combined approaches depending on clinical circumstances. Historical treatment theories should be interpreted within their own period.
Related Articles
OCD Differential Diagnosis: What Conditions Can Look Like OCD? Anxiety, Autism, Psychosis, OCPD, and More
References
American Psychiatric Association. (n.d.). DSM History. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm/about-dsm/history-of-the-dsm
American Psychiatric Association. (n.d.). DSM-5 Fact Sheets: Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm/educational-resources/dsm-5-fact-sheets
Bayer, R., & Spitzer, R. L. (1985). Neurosis, psychodynamics, and DSM-III: A history of the controversy. Archives of General Psychiatry, 42(2), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1985.01790250081011
Freud, S. (1909). Notes Upon a Case of Obsessional Neurosis. In The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Vol. 10. https://pep-web.org/search/document/se.010.0151a?page=P0237
Lake, C. R., & Hurwitz, N. (2007). The schizophrenias, the neuroses and the covered wagon: A critical review. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 3(1), 133–143. https://doi.org/10.2147/nedt.2007.3.1.133
Lanteri-Laura, G. (1994). La psychasthénie: histoire et évolution d’un concept de P. Janet [Psychasthenia: history and evolution of the P. Janet concept]. L’Encéphale, 20(Spec No 3), 551–557. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7843050/
May-Tolzmann, U. (1998). ‘Obsessional neurosis’: A nosographic innovation by Freud. History of Psychiatry, 9(35), 335–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957154X9800903504
National Institute of Mental Health. (n.d.). Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: When Unwanted Thoughts or Repetitive Behaviors Take Over. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/obsessive-compulsive-disorder-when-unwanted-thoughts-or-repetitive-behaviors-take-over
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2005, updated). Obsessive-compulsive disorder and body dysmorphic disorder: treatment (CG31), Recommendations. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg31/chapter/Recommendations
Shorter, E. (2015). The history of nosology and the rise of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 17(1), 59–67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4421901/
Song, Y., Li, D., Zhang, S., Jin, Z., Zhen, Y., Su, Y., Zhang, M., Lu, L., Xue, X., Luo, J., Liang, M., & Li, X. (2022). The effect of exposure and response prevention therapy on obsessive-compulsive disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychiatry Research, 317, 114861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114861
Stein, D. J., Costa, D. L. C., Lochner, C., Miguel, E. C., Reddy, Y. C. J., Shavitt, R. G., van den Heuvel, O. A., & Simpson, H. B. (2019). Obsessive-compulsive disorder. Nature Reviews Disease Primers, 5, 52. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-019-0102-3
Steinberg, H., Carius, D., & Fontenelle, L. F. (2017). Kraepelin’s views on obsessive neurosis: A comparison with DSM-5 criteria for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry, 39(4), 355–364. https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-4446-2016-1959
World Health Organization. (1992). The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/classification/other-classifications/bluebook.pdf
World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240077263