Background A systematic overview of underlying mechanisms in the new disruptive mood dysregulation disorder (DMDD) diagnosis is needed. The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) represent a system of six domains of human functioning, which aims to structure the understanding of the nature of mental illnesses. By means of the RDoC framework, the objective of this systematic review is to synthesize available data on children and youths <18 years suffering from DMDD as reported in peer reviewed papers. Methods A literature search guided by PRISMA was conducted using Medline, PsychInfo, and Embase, while the RDoC domains were employed to systematize research findings. Risk of bias in the included studies was examined. Results We identified 319 studies. After study selection, we included 29 studies. Twenty‐one of these had findings relating to >1 RDoC domain. The risk of bias assessment shows limitations in the research foundation of current knowledge on mechanisms of DMDD. Discussion Reviewing self‐report, behavior and neurocircuit findings by means of RDoC domains, we suggest that DMDD youths have a negative interpretation bias in social processes and valence systems. In occurrence of a negative stimuli interpretation, aberrant cognitive processing may arise. However, current knowledge of DMDD is influenced by lack of sample diversity and open science practices. Conclusion We found the six RDoC domains useful in structuring current evidence of the underlying mechanisms of DMDD. Important opportunities for future studies in this field of research are suggested. In clinical practice, this comprehensive summary on DMDD mechanisms can be used in psychoeducation and treatment plans.

Addressing current challenges in research on disruptive mood dysregulation disorder (DMDD), this study aims to compare executive function in children with DMDD, children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and children with oppositional defiant disorder (ODD). We also explore associations between irritability, a key DMDD characteristic, and executive function in a clinical sample regardless of diagnosis. Our sample include children (6–12 years) referred to child psychiatric clinics. Measures of daily-life (parent-reported questionnaire) and performance-based (neuropsychological tasks) executive function were applied. Identifying diagnoses, clinicians administered a standardized semi-structured diagnostic interview with parents. Irritability was assessed by parent-report. First, we compared executive function in DMDD (without ADHD/ODD), ADHD (without DMDD/ODD), ODD (without DMDD/ADHD) and DMDD + ADHD (without ODD). Second, we analyzed associations between executive function and irritability using the total sample. In daily life, children with DMDD showed clinically elevated and significantly worse emotion control scores compared to children with ADHD, and clinically elevated scores on cognitive flexibility compared to norm scores. Children with DMDD had significantly less working memory problems than those with ADHD. No differences were found between DMDD and ODD. Increased irritability was positively associated with emotional dyscontrol and cognitive inflexibility. For performance-based executive function, no diagnostic differences or associations with irritability were observed. We discuss how, in daily life, children with high irritability-levels get overwhelmed by feelings without accompanying regulatory capacities.

Background Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder was included in DSM-5 to accommodate new research addressing aspects of emotional dysregulation in children suffering from disruptive behavior problems. Despite growing interest in Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder, few studies have looked at prevalence rates in European clinical populations. The primary objective of this study was to examine the prevalence and characteristics associated with Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder in a Norwegian clinical sample. Methods The present study assessed children 6–12 years of age referred to a mental health clinic for evaluation and treatment ( N = 218, M age = 9.6, 60.4% boys) and compared those who did and did not meet Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder diagnostic criteria. Diagnoses were determined using K-SADS-PL 2013. Associated difficulties at home and in school were measured by Achenbach Systems of Empirically Based Assessment battery. Results In this clinical sample, 24% met the diagnostic criteria for Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder. Children with Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder were more likely than those without Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder to be male (77% vs. 55%, p = .008), be living in poverty, have multiple mental health diagnoses (79% vs. 53%, p = .001), and have lower global functioning levels as measured by Children’s Global Assessment Scale (range 0–100, M = 47, SD = 8.5 vs. M = 57, SD = 11.4, p=<.001). Finally, parents and teachers of children with Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder reported lower overall competence and adaptive functioning, and higher total symptom load than children with other diagnoses. Conclusion Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder is highly prevalent in a Norwegian clinical sample and displays a high symptom load. Our results are in accordance with similar studies. Consistent findings across the world may support Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder as a valid diagnostic category.

No abstract

No abstract