A classification based on evidence is the first step to clinical utility.

Reply by the current authors to the comments made by John G. Gunderson et al. (see record 2011-25063-003); John Livesley (see record 2011-25063-004); Joel Paris (see record 2011-25063-005); Anthony W. Bateman (see record 2011-25063-006); Andrew M. Chanen (see record 2011-25063-007); Erik Simonsen (see record 2011-25063-008); Kenneth R. Silk (see record 2011-25063-009); and Antonia S. New (see record 2011-25063-010) on the original article (see record 2011-25063-002). We welcome the opportunity to respond to the commentaries on our proposed revised classification of personality disorder. We argue that our revised classification, despite all the limitations imposed by the absence of independent biomarkers or other yardsticks, is a good empirical classification that synthesizes the advances that have been made in the past 30 years. These advances are not mere statistical developments that are esoteric and arcane; they show that there are several personality dimensions that together underpin diagnosis and explain pathology, which can be formulated simply and can be incorporated into a clinically useful nosological system. We agree that this represents only a start in defining a new classification, and we need to bring our proposals and those of the current DSM-5 system closer together. But we hope that our continued field studies and, indeed, the work of our commentators and other researchers will assist this in the next few years.