What is the difference between a diagnostic formulation and a case formulation?

A diagnostic formulation focuses specifically on arriving at and justifying a DSM-5-TR diagnosis through systematic differential diagnosis. It documents the reasoning behind diagnostic inclusion and exclusion, addresses comorbidity, and explains how the diagnosis was determined. A case formulation (biopsychosocial, CBT, psychodynamic, 4 Ps) explains why the client developed the condition and what maintains it. The diagnostic formulation answers 'what does the client have?' while the case formulation answers 'why does the client have it?' Both are important and complementary.

When should I use a provisional diagnosis versus a rule-out diagnosis?

Use a provisional diagnosis when the clinical picture is consistent with a specific disorder but you do not yet have enough information to make a definitive diagnosis. For example, 'Major Depressive Disorder, provisional' when the client reports depressive symptoms but you have not yet ruled out a medical cause. Use 'rule out' when a disorder is being actively considered but has not yet been confirmed or excluded. 'Rule out Bipolar II Disorder' means you are investigating whether the client meets criteria. In documentation, 'provisional' suggests you think this is likely the diagnosis; 'rule out' suggests you are not yet sure.

How do I handle diagnostic disagreement with a previous provider?

Document the previous diagnosis, the source, and your clinical reasoning for arriving at a different conclusion. For example: 'Client was previously diagnosed with Bipolar II Disorder by Dr. [Name] in 2023. Based on the current evaluation, including detailed mood charting, collateral history from the client's partner, and review of prior treatment records, the current presentation is more consistent with Major Depressive Disorder with anxious distress. No clear hypomanic episodes meeting full DSM-5-TR criteria were identified.' This approach is transparent, documents your reasoning, and respects the prior clinician's assessment while presenting your clinical judgment.

Can I diagnose based on a single evaluation session?

You can arrive at a working diagnosis based on a single comprehensive evaluation, and clinicians do this routinely. However, some conditions require longitudinal observation — for example, personality disorders are better diagnosed after multiple sessions because the enduring patterns that define them may not be apparent in a single interview. For complex differential diagnoses (depression vs. bipolar, PTSD vs. BPD), it is often appropriate to assign a provisional diagnosis after the initial evaluation and refine it over subsequent sessions as more data becomes available.

What are the most common diagnostic errors in clinical practice?

Research on diagnostic errors in mental health identifies several common patterns: anchoring bias (overcommitting to the first diagnostic impression), confirmation bias (selectively attending to information that supports the initial diagnosis), premature closure (stopping the diagnostic process once a plausible diagnosis is identified without considering alternatives), and base rate neglect (failing to consider how common a condition is in the presenting population). Using structured differential diagnosis — systematically considering and documenting alternative diagnoses — is the primary safeguard against these errors.

Diagnostic Formulation Example: How to Write a Differential Diagnosis

Assessment Reports|19 min read|Updated 2026-07-18|Clinically reviewed

What Is a Diagnostic Formulation?

A diagnostic formulation is a structured clinical document that presents and justifies a client's psychiatric diagnosis through systematic differential reasoning. It goes beyond simply listing DSM-5-TR diagnoses — it explains the clinician's reasoning process: what diagnoses were considered, what evidence supports or contradicts each diagnostic possibility, and how the clinician arrived at the final diagnostic conclusion.

The DSM-5-TR Handbook of Differential Diagnosis, authored by Michael B. First, provides a six-step approach that moves from ruling out malingering and factitious disorders, to determining whether symptoms are substance-induced or due to a medical condition, to identifying the primary disorder, to establishing the boundary between disorder and normality, to differentiating adjustment disorders from other conditions, and finally to establishing comorbidities. This systematic approach prevents the two most common diagnostic errors: premature closure (stopping at the first plausible diagnosis) and anchoring bias (overcommitting to an initial impression without considering alternatives).

A well-documented diagnostic formulation protects the clinician by demonstrating clinical reasoning, supports treatment planning by ensuring the correct target is identified, and serves as a communication tool for other providers, insurance reviewers, and legal proceedings where diagnostic accuracy is scrutinized.

When You Need It

When conducting a comprehensive diagnostic evaluation, particularly for complex or ambiguous presentations
When the differential diagnosis includes conditions with overlapping symptom profiles (e.g., depression vs. bipolar, PTSD vs. BPD, ADHD vs. anxiety)
When a client has been assigned multiple diagnoses by previous providers and diagnostic clarity is needed
When writing a psychological evaluation or assessment report that requires documented clinical reasoning
When insurance, legal, or institutional requirements demand documentation of how a diagnosis was determined
When training or supervising clinicians in diagnostic reasoning

Key Components

Presenting Symptoms

A detailed, behavioral description of the client's current symptoms — not yet filtered through diagnostic categories. Document what the client reports and what you observe, including onset, duration, frequency, severity, and functional impact. Use the client's own language alongside clinical terminology.

The Six-Step Differential Process

Step 1: Rule out malingering and factitious disorders. Consider whether the client has an external incentive (legal, financial, occupational) to exaggerate or fabricate symptoms. This does not require accusation — it requires documentation that the possibility was considered and the clinical basis for your conclusion.

Step 2: Rule out substance-induced etiology. Determine whether the symptoms are attributable to the physiological effects of a substance (alcohol, drugs, medications). This requires a thorough substance use history and, in some cases, laboratory testing. The temporal relationship between substance use and symptom onset is the key diagnostic criterion.

Step 3: Rule out general medical conditions. Determine whether the symptoms are attributable to a medical condition (e.g., hypothyroidism causing depressive symptoms, pheochromocytoma causing panic-like symptoms). Coordinate with the client's primary care provider and request relevant medical workup.

Step 4: Identify the primary disorder. Based on the symptom picture, determine which DSM-5-TR diagnosis best accounts for the presentation. Use the DSM-5-TR decision trees and differential diagnosis tables to systematically compare the client's symptoms against diagnostic criteria for each condition under consideration.

Step 5: Establish the boundary with normality. Determine whether the symptoms meet the threshold for clinical significance — that is, whether they cause clinically significant distress or functional impairment. Normal reactions to stressors (grief, adjustment) must be distinguished from clinical disorders.

Step 6: Address comorbidity. Determine whether the client meets criteria for additional diagnoses beyond the primary disorder. Document each comorbid condition with supporting evidence. Note which symptoms are attributable to which diagnosis to avoid double-counting.

Rule-In and Rule-Out Reasoning

For each diagnosis considered, document the evidence that supports (rules in) and contradicts (rules out) the diagnosis. This head-to-head comparison is the core of the differential — it demonstrates that you considered alternatives and arrived at your conclusion through systematic analysis, not assumption.

Provisional and Deferred Diagnoses

When the available data is insufficient to confirm or exclude a diagnosis, document it as provisional or deferred. Specify what additional information would be needed to resolve the diagnostic question (e.g., "Provisional diagnosis of Bipolar II Disorder pending mood diary and collateral history").

Comorbidity Documentation

When multiple diagnoses co-occur, document how they relate to one another. Are they independent conditions? Does one exacerbate the other? Is one secondary to the other? This relational documentation informs treatment prioritization.

Diagnostic Formulation — Complex Differential (Depression vs. Bipolar II vs. ADHD)

Client: R.J. | Age: 27 | Date: 03/20/2026 Clinician: [Name], PsyD | Referral Source: Self-referred; previously diagnosed with MDD by PCP

Presenting Symptoms: R.J. is a 27-year-old woman who presents with persistent low mood, fatigue, difficulty concentrating, and "feeling stuck." She reports that these symptoms have been present in varying degrees since adolescence but have worsened over the past year following a breakup and a change in job responsibilities. She describes difficulty completing tasks at work ("I start things and can't finish them"), chronic disorganization, procrastination, and a pattern of intense short-term interests followed by abandonment. She reports periods of high energy and productivity lasting several days, during which she takes on multiple projects, sleeps less (4-5 hours without feeling tired), and feels "wired and confident," followed by crashes into low mood and inertia. She has been on sertraline 100mg for the past 18 months, prescribed by her PCP for depression, with limited improvement. PHQ-9: 14 (moderate). GAD-7: 8 (mild).

Previous Diagnoses:

Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent (diagnosed by PCP, 2024)
"Possible ADHD" (suggested by a college counselor in 2019, never formally evaluated)

Differential Diagnostic Analysis:

Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent (F33.1) — PARTIALLY SUPPORTED

Evidence for: Client endorses depressed mood, anhedonia, fatigue, difficulty concentrating, and feelings of worthlessness that meet duration criteria (most of the day, more than half the days, for periods exceeding two weeks). Her PHQ-9 of 14 is consistent with moderate depression. She has a family history of depression (mother treated with SSRIs). Her symptoms cause clinically significant impairment in occupational and social functioning.

Evidence against: Her depressive symptoms have only partially responded to adequate SSRI treatment (sertraline 100mg for 18 months), raising the question of whether MDD is the complete diagnostic picture. Her reported periods of elevated mood, increased energy, decreased need for sleep, and increased goal-directed activity are not accounted for by an MDD diagnosis and warrant evaluation for a bipolar spectrum condition. Additionally, her lifelong pattern of concentration difficulty, disorganization, and task completion problems predates the onset of mood episodes, suggesting a possible attentional disorder independent of depression.

Bipolar II Disorder (F31.81) — UNDER CONSIDERATION

Evidence for: Client describes discrete periods lasting three to five days characterized by elevated or expansive mood, markedly decreased need for sleep (4-5 hours without fatigue), increased goal-directed activity (taking on multiple projects simultaneously), and subjective sense of increased energy and confidence. These episodes represent a change from her baseline and are noticeable to her roommate, who describes her as "a different person" during these periods. These features are consistent with DSM-5-TR criteria for hypomanic episodes. The pattern of depressive episodes alternating with hypomanic periods is the hallmark of Bipolar II. Her partial response to SSRI monotherapy is consistent with bipolar depression, which characteristically responds poorly to antidepressants alone and may be worsened by them.

Evidence against: The client has difficulty reliably dating the onset and duration of the described high-energy periods — she is uncertain whether they consistently last at least four days (the DSM-5-TR minimum for hypomania). She denies grandiosity, pressured speech, flight of ideas, and risky behavior during these periods. No collateral source has described the episodes as clearly problematic or impairing. The periods may represent normal mood variation or ADHD-related hyperfocusing rather than true hypomania. Prospective mood charting would clarify this question.

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Predominantly Inattentive (F90.0) — SUPPORTED

Evidence for: Client reports a lifelong pattern of difficulty sustaining attention, chronic disorganization, frequent careless mistakes, difficulty following through on tasks, losing necessary items, and being easily distracted. These symptoms were present in childhood — she recalls being described as "spacey" and "not working up to her potential" by teachers, and she reports that homework completion was a chronic struggle throughout school despite above-average intelligence. Her academic performance was inconsistent ("A's on tests, C's on homework"). These inattentive symptoms predate the onset of mood disturbances and are present even during euthymic periods, distinguishing them from mood-related concentration impairment. Review of prior school records (report cards from grades 3, 5, and 8) documents teacher comments about inattention, disorganization, and incomplete work.

Evidence against: The client was never formally diagnosed or treated for ADHD in childhood, and formal neuropsychological testing has not been conducted. Her childhood symptoms were attributed to "laziness" and "not trying hard enough" by her parents, which is common for girls with predominantly inattentive ADHD but does not constitute a prior clinical diagnosis. Adult ADHD rating scales (ASRS-5) administered today yielded a score consistent with probable ADHD, but these are screening instruments, not diagnostic measures.

Substance-Induced and Medical Etiologies — RULED OUT Client denies current substance use other than occasional social alcohol (1-2 drinks per month). She denies cannabis, stimulant, or other drug use. Recent thyroid panel and CBC from PCP are within normal limits. No medical conditions identified that would account for the symptom picture.

Diagnostic Conclusions:

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Predominantly Inattentive Presentation (F90.0) — Supported by lifelong pattern of inattentive symptoms predating mood disorder, corroborated by school records, functionally impairing across settings, and present during euthymic periods. Formal neuropsychological testing recommended to confirm.
Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Moderate (F33.1) — Supported by recurrent depressive episodes meeting DSM-5-TR criteria, family history, and current PHQ-9. Retained as a diagnosis, but diagnostic clarity regarding Bipolar II is needed.
Bipolar II Disorder (F31.81) — Provisional — The reported high-energy periods have features suggestive of hypomania but do not yet clearly meet DSM-5-TR duration and severity criteria. Prospective mood charting over the next 8-12 weeks is recommended, along with collateral history from the client's roommate, to determine whether these episodes meet hypomania criteria. If Bipolar II is confirmed, the MDD diagnosis would be subsumed under the bipolar diagnosis and the treatment plan (particularly medication management) would change significantly.

Clinical Reasoning Note: The distinction between Bipolar II and recurrent MDD with comorbid ADHD is critical for treatment planning. If Bipolar II is confirmed, SSRI monotherapy is contraindicated (risk of mood destabilization) and a mood stabilizer would be the first-line pharmacological intervention. If the high-energy periods are attributable to ADHD-related hyperfocusing rather than true hypomania, the current SSRI may be appropriate with the addition of a stimulant for ADHD. The diagnostic plan (mood charting, collateral history, neuropsychological testing) is designed to resolve this differential within 8-12 weeks.

Diagnostic Plan:

Prospective mood charting (daily) for 8-12 weeks to capture the duration, frequency, and character of elevated mood periods
Collateral interview with client's roommate (with client consent) regarding observable mood and behavior changes
Referral for neuropsychological evaluation to confirm ADHD and rule out cognitive contributions to concentration difficulty
Coordinate with PCP regarding medication management — recommend holding SSRI at current dose pending diagnostic clarification; do not add stimulant until Bipolar II is confirmed or ruled out
Reassess diagnostic formulation at 12-week follow-up

This is a sample for educational purposes only — not real patient data.

A Second Worked Example: Trauma and Anxiety Differential

The first example above illustrates a mood and attention differential. The example below walks the six-step process explicitly for a trauma and anxiety presentation complicated by alcohol use — one of the most common differentials in outpatient practice, and one where the substance-induced step (Step 2) does real diagnostic work rather than serving as a formality. Note how each step is labeled so a reader can follow the reasoning chain, and how the alcohol use is documented as a maintaining factor and comorbidity rather than being prematurely treated as either the sole cause or an irrelevant detail.

Diagnostic Formulation — Six-Step Differential (PTSD vs. Adjustment Disorder vs. GAD vs. Panic Disorder)

Client: D.M. | Age: 34 | Date: 07/18/2026 Clinician: [Name], LCSW | Referral Source: Referred by PCP for "anxiety and poor sleep"

Presenting Symptoms: D.M. is a 34-year-old man who presents approximately four months after a serious motor vehicle accident in which his vehicle was struck on the driver's side by a truck that ran a red light; he sustained a fractured clavicle and was hospitalized overnight. He reports sleep-onset and sleep-maintenance insomnia (4-5 hours of broken sleep nightly), recurrent nightmares "two or three times a week, always some version of the crash," intrusive daytime images of the impact triggered by traffic sounds, and physiological reactivity (racing heart, sweating) when driving or riding as a passenger. He has begun taking a longer route to work to avoid the intersection where the accident occurred and has stopped driving on the highway entirely. He describes feeling "on edge all the time," irritable with his wife and children, and emotionally "flat — like I'm watching my life from behind glass." He reports drinking 3-4 beers most evenings "to slow my head down enough to sleep," an increase from 1-2 beers on weekends before the accident. GAD-7: 15 (severe). PCL-5: 48. AUDIT-C: 6 (positive screen).

Relevant History: No prior mental health treatment. No prior trauma history reported. Denies panic attacks before the accident. Family history notable for father with alcohol use disorder. Medical history unremarkable apart from the accident injuries, which have healed without complication.

Differential Diagnostic Analysis (Six-Step Method):

Step 1 — Malingering and factitious presentation: CONSIDERED, NOT SUPPORTED. D.M. has a pending insurance claim related to the accident, which constitutes a potential external incentive and was therefore explicitly considered. However, he self-referred through his PCP rather than through an attorney, minimized rather than amplified symptoms during the interview ("I should be over this by now"), was reluctant to discuss the drinking increase, and his reported symptoms are internally consistent, consistent across sessions with his PCP, and corroborated by his wife's collateral report of nightmares and irritability. Presentation is not consistent with feigning; no further assessment of effort indicated at this time.

Step 2 — Substance-induced etiology: PARTIALLY CONTRIBUTORY, NOT PRIMARY. The temporal sequence is decisive here: intrusive symptoms, avoidance, hyperarousal, and nightmares began within weeks of the accident and preceded the escalation in alcohol use, which D.M. describes explicitly as an attempt to manage sleep and intrusive thoughts. Alcohol at this level likely worsens sleep fragmentation and may amplify morning anxiety and irritability, so it is documented as a maintaining and complicating factor — but it does not account for the onset of the trauma-specific symptom cluster. Alcohol-induced anxiety disorder is therefore not supported as the primary diagnosis. The use pattern itself is evaluated separately under Step 6.

Step 3 — General medical etiology: RULED OUT. Recent post-accident workup, including thyroid panel and basic metabolic panel ordered by the PCP, is within normal limits. No head injury or loss of consciousness was documented at the time of the accident, and D.M. denies post-concussive symptoms (headache, dizziness, photosensitivity). No medical condition identified that would account for the presentation.

Step 4 — Primary disorder:

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (F43.10) — SUPPORTED. Evidence for: Criterion A trauma (serious motor vehicle accident with injury). Intrusion symptoms (nightmares, intrusive images, cued physiological reactivity). Persistent avoidance (route change, cessation of highway driving, reluctance to discuss the accident). Negative alterations in cognitions and mood (emotional numbing — "watching my life from behind glass" — irritability, diminished interest in family activities). Marked alterations in arousal and reactivity (hypervigilance in traffic, insomnia, irritability, exaggerated startle to horns). Duration exceeds one month; symptoms cause clinically significant occupational and family impairment. PCL-5 of 48 is well above the commonly used provisional-diagnosis range. Evidence against: None substantive; the full symptom picture maps onto all four DSM-5-TR symptom clusters.

Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety (F43.22) — RULED OUT. Considered because symptoms began within three months of an identifiable stressor. However, adjustment disorder is a residual diagnosis: it applies only when criteria for another specific disorder are not met. Because the presentation meets full PTSD criteria, adjustment disorder is excluded by the DSM-5-TR hierarchy.

Generalized Anxiety Disorder (F41.1) — RULED OUT. Considered given the GAD-7 of 15 and pervasive "on edge" quality. However, D.M.'s worry and arousal are trauma-referenced (driving, traffic, the accident and its consequences) rather than free-floating across multiple life domains, and there is no history of excessive worry predating the accident. The elevated GAD-7 reflects trauma-driven arousal, not an independent generalized anxiety condition.

Panic Disorder (F41.0) — RULED OUT. D.M.'s episodes of racing heart and sweating occur exclusively in response to identifiable trauma cues (driving, traffic sounds) and are better characterized as cued physiological reactivity under PTSD Criterion B. He denies uncued panic attacks and denies persistent worry about future attacks or attack-related behavior change independent of driving avoidance.

Step 5 — Boundary with normality: THRESHOLD MET. A period of distress, wariness while driving, and disturbed sleep is an expectable reaction in the weeks following a serious accident. D.M.'s presentation exceeds that boundary: symptoms have persisted and intensified over four months, involve functional avoidance that affects his commute and family logistics, have measurably impaired his marriage and work concentration, and include emotional numbing that is not part of a normal recovery trajectory.

Step 6 — Comorbidity:

Alcohol Use Disorder, Mild (F10.10) — SUPPORTED. D.M. meets criteria including use in larger amounts than intended, use despite interpersonal consequences (wife's expressed concern, arguments about evening drinking), and use to manage psychological symptoms, with a positive AUDIT-C. Documented as mild and as functionally related to PTSD (self-medication of insomnia and intrusions) — a relationship with direct treatment implications, since the drinking is expected to diminish as trauma symptoms are treated, but must be monitored given the family history of alcohol use disorder.

Diagnostic Conclusions:

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (F43.10) — principal diagnosis; meets all DSM-5-TR criteria as detailed above.
Alcohol Use Disorder, Mild (F10.10) — comorbid; onset following index trauma; functionally linked to PTSD symptoms.

Clinical Reasoning Note: The central differential question — PTSD versus adjustment disorder versus an independent anxiety disorder — was resolved primarily by symptom specificity and the diagnostic hierarchy: the intrusion and avoidance symptoms are trauma-referenced, the full PTSD criteria are met (excluding adjustment disorder as a residual category), and no anxiety pathology predates the accident. The alcohol question was resolved by temporal sequencing: trauma symptoms preceded the escalation in drinking. Treatment planning follows directly: trauma-focused psychotherapy (e.g., CPT or PE) as the primary intervention, with alcohol use addressed concurrently through psychoeducation and monitoring rather than deferred to a separate treatment episode, and sleep targeted early given its role in maintaining both conditions.

Diagnostic Plan:

Repeat PCL-5 and AUDIT-C at four-week intervals to track symptom trajectory and alcohol use
Brief collateral check-in with wife (with client consent) if numbing and irritability do not improve by week 8
Coordinate with PCP regarding sleep; recommend against benzodiazepine initiation given trauma presentation and alcohol use
Reassess for independent anxiety or depressive comorbidity at 12 weeks, once trauma symptoms and alcohol use have begun to resolve

This is a sample for educational purposes only — not real patient data.

Try this template in My Clinical Writer Download Diagnostic Formulation Template (.docx)

How to Write It Step by Step

Step 1: Begin with a thorough, unbiased symptom inventory. Before considering diagnostic categories, document the full range of symptoms the client presents. Record onset, duration, frequency, severity, and context. Use the client's language alongside clinical descriptions. This raw symptom picture is the foundation for all subsequent reasoning.

Step 2: Generate a differential diagnosis list. Based on the symptom inventory, identify all DSM-5-TR diagnoses that could plausibly account for the presentation. Cast a wide net — it is better to consider and systematically exclude a diagnosis than to miss it through premature closure. Use the DSM-5-TR decision trees to systematically identify candidate diagnoses.

Step 3: Apply the six-step process. Work through the six steps described above: rule out malingering, substance-induced conditions, and medical etiologies before identifying the primary disorder and addressing comorbidity.

Step 4: Document rule-in and rule-out evidence for each diagnostic possibility. For each candidate diagnosis, list the specific symptoms and history that support it and the specific symptoms and history that argue against it. This head-to-head comparison is the intellectual core of the differential.

Step 5: Arrive at diagnostic conclusions. Based on the differential analysis, state your diagnostic conclusions. For confirmed diagnoses, cite the supporting evidence. For provisional diagnoses, state what additional information would be needed to confirm or exclude them. For ruled-out diagnoses, briefly note the reason for exclusion.

Step 6: Document the diagnostic plan. If diagnostic questions remain unresolved, specify the steps you will take to resolve them — mood charting, collateral history, neuropsychological testing, laboratory workup, or longitudinal observation. Include timelines for reassessment.

Step 7: Link the diagnostic formulation to treatment planning. Explain how the diagnosis (or diagnostic uncertainty) affects treatment decisions. If the differential has treatment-critical implications (e.g., SSRI contraindication in bipolar disorder), document this explicitly.

Common Mistakes

Premature diagnostic closure. Stopping at the first plausible diagnosis without considering alternatives is the most dangerous diagnostic error. If a client presents with depressed mood and concentration difficulty, "Major Depressive Disorder" may be correct — but it may also be bipolar depression, ADHD, PTSD, substance-related depression, or a medical condition. The differential should demonstrate that alternatives were considered.
Diagnosing by checklist without clinical judgment. Meeting the minimum symptom count for a DSM-5-TR diagnosis does not automatically warrant the diagnosis. Clinical significance, functional impairment, duration, and context all matter. A person who meets five criteria for MDD two weeks after the death of a parent may be experiencing normal grief, not a clinical disorder.
Failing to document rule-out reasoning. Writing "R/O Bipolar II" on a diagnostic list without documenting what evidence supports or contradicts the diagnosis, or what steps you are taking to resolve the question, provides no clinical value. A rule-out should always be accompanied by a plan to rule it in or out.
Ignoring base rates. Some diagnoses are rare; others are common. A 25-year-old presenting with concentration difficulty in a primary care setting is far more likely to have ADHD, depression, or anxiety than a neurodegenerative condition — but the clinician who never considers the rare diagnosis when the presentation warrants it is also making an error. Differential diagnosis requires balancing probability with possibility.
Overdiagnosing comorbidity when a single diagnosis explains the presentation. Parsimony matters. If a client's anxiety, irritability, insomnia, and concentration difficulty are all better accounted for by PTSD, listing GAD, insomnia disorder, and ADHD as additional diagnoses adds diagnostic noise without clinical value. The DSM-5-TR differential diagnosis tables help clinicians determine when symptoms are better accounted for by another condition.