Expert guidance from scientific societies and regulatory agencies recommend a framework of principles for frequency of in-person evaluations and remote monitoring for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. However, there are limited data regarding adherence to recommendations among paediatric electrophysiologists, and there are no data regarding cardiac implantable electronic device-related ancillary testing.

To assess current clinical practices for cardiac implantable electronic device in-person evaluation, remote monitoring, and cardiac implantable electronic device-related ancillary testing, the Paediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society members were surveyed. The main outcome measures were variations in frequency of in person evaluation, frequency of remote monitoring, and cardiac implantable electronic device-related ancillary testing.

All respondents performed in-person evaluation at least once a year, but <50% of respondents performed an in-person evaluation within 2 weeks of cardiac implantable electronic device implantation. Remote monitoring was performed every 3 months for pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators by 71 and 75% respondents, respectively. Follow-up echocardiography was performed every 2–3 years by 53% respondents for patients with >50% ventricular pacing. Majority of respondents (75%) did not perform either an exercise stress test or ambulatory Holter monitoring or chest X-ray (65%) after cardiac implantable electronic device implantation.

This survey identified significant practice variations in cardiac implantable electronic device in- person evaluation, remote monitoring, and ancillary testing practices among paediatric electrophysiologists. Cardiac implantable electronic device management may be optimised by development of a paediatric-specific guidelines for follow-up and ancillary testing.

First rank symptoms (FRS) of schizophrenia have been used for decades for diagnostic purposes. In the new version of the DSM-5, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has abolished any further reference to FRS of schizophrenia and treats them like any other “criterion A” symptom (e.g. any kind of hallucination or delusion) with regard to their diagnostic implication. The ICD-10 is currently under revision and may follow suit. In this review, we discuss central points of criticism that are directed against the continuous use of first rank symptoms (FRS) to diagnose schizophrenia.

We describe the specific circumstances in which Schneider articulated his approach to schizophrenia diagnosis and discuss the relevance of his approach today. Further, we discuss anthropological and phenomenological aspects of FRS and highlight the importance of self-disorder (as part of FRS) for the diagnosis of schizophrenia. Finally, we will conclude by suggesting that the theory and rationale behind the definition of FRS is still important for psychopathological as well as neurobiological approaches today.

Results of a pivotal meta-analysis and other studies show relatively poor sensitivity, yet relatively high specificity for FRS as diagnostic marker for schizophrenia. Several methodological issues impede a systematic assessment of the usefulness of FRS in the diagnosis of schizophrenia. However, there is good evidence that FRS may still be useful to differentiate schizophrenia from somatic causes of psychotic states. This may be particularly important in countries or situations with little access to other diagnostic tests. FRS may thus still represent a useful aid for clinicians in the diagnostic process.

In conclusion, we suggest to continue a tradition of careful clinical observation and fine-grained psychopathological assessment, including a focus on symptoms regarding self-disorders, which reflects a key aspect of psychosis. We suggest that the importance of FRS may indeed be scaled down to a degree that the occurrence of a single FRS alone should not suffice to diagnose schizophrenia, but, on the other hand, absence of FRS should be regarded as a warning sign that the diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder is not warranted and requires specific care to rule out other causes, particularly neurological and other somatic disorders. With respect to the current stage of the development of ICD-11, we appreciate the fact that self-disorders are explicitly mentioned (and distinguished from delusions) in the list of mandatory symptoms but still feel that delusional perceptions and complex hallucinations as defined by Schneider should be distinguished from delusions or hallucinations of “any kind”. Finally, we encourage future research to explore the psychopathological context and the neurobiological correlates of self-disorders as a potential phenotypic trait marker of schizophrenia.

In a prospective cohort design, we investigated: i) diagnostic stability of initially antipsychotic-naïve schizophrenia patients, ii) symptom severity including symptomatic remission, and iii) functional remission including full recovery.

We included 143 antipsychotic-naïve patients with first-episode schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. After 4–18 years, we clinically re-evaluated diagnosis, symptom severity and functioning for 70 patients. From the nationwide Danish registers, we extracted pragmatic outcome measures for 142 patients. We examined associations between baseline variables (age at diagnosis, sex, and premorbid intelligence) and long-term outcome status (symptomatic and functional remission).

At 4–18 years follow-up, 80% met the criteria for schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, however, despite the high diagnostic stability 53% met the criteria of symptomatic and/or functional remission. Symptomatic remission characterized 34% of the patients and was associated with female sex, better premorbid intelligence, and a younger age at schizophrenia diagnosis. Functional remission characterized 41% of the patients and 17% of patients met criteria for full recovery both of which were associated with female sex. The clinically re-evaluated patients did not differ from the drop-outs on key register-based variables.

We confirm the emerging evidence of a decreasing long-term diagnostic stability of schizophrenia, and a protective role of female sex. The association between premorbid intelligence and symptomatic remission underscores the pertinence of including cognitive deficits in the diagnostic category of schizophrenia. The association between younger age at diagnosis and symptomatic remission may reflect positive effects of early detection or a drift in the interpretation of the diagnostic classification system.

Adjustment disorder (AD) is one of the most debated diagnoses in psychiatry since it has been recognised as vaguely defined and causing a lot of difficulties in clinical practice. We aimed to analyse the structure of adjustment disorder based on International Classification of Diseases (ICD)–11 proposals by the WHO ICD-11 Working Group on the Classification of Disorders Specifically Associated with Stress in the general population in Lithuania. Three structural models of adjustment disorder were tested using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Data from the sample of 649 participants who experienced at least one significant stressor during the last two years was included in CFA analysis. Stressor exposure and AD symptoms were measured with the Lithuanian version of the Adjustment Disorder New Module (ADNM-20).

The CFA analysis revealed that the two core factor model of the AD with two core symptoms: preoccupation and failure to adapt fitted data the best in contrast to other two models.

The study supports the ICD-11 proposal for the structure of adjustment disorder with two core symptoms: preoccupation and failure to adapt. Further studies are needed to analyse the structure of AD in other populations.