Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19635242›Full record

ReviewCurrent psychiatry reports2009

Psychopathological assessment of schizophrenia: relevance for classification.

Manuel J Cuesta, Victor Peralta

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current psychiatry reports, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Manuel J CuestaPsychiatric Unit, Virgen del Camino Hospital, Irunlarrea 4, Pamplona 31008, Spain. mcuestaz@cfnavarra.es
Victor Peralta

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Considerable effort has been focused on updating the clinical aspects of psychiatric classifications based on recent progress in the field of neurobiology. In this article, recent developments in the primary assessment methods within clinical psychiatry, which are based in phenomenological psychopathology, are reviewed as nosotaxies that are still embedded in clinical description. New directions for research on psychopathology are outlined to elicit better descriptions of subjective experience from patients. Finally, the known limitations of the Kraepelinian dichotomy are summarized, and future problems related to the inclusion of the new dimensional assessment methods in the next psychiatric classifications are described.

Indexed as

Bipolar DisorderDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental DisordersHumansPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesPsychometricsPsychopathologySchizophreniaSchizophrenic PsychologyTerminology as Topic

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.