Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20428307›Full record

ArticlePsychiatry (Edgmont (Pa. : Township))2007

How "objective" are psychiatric diagnoses?: (guess again).

Ronald Pies

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychiatry (Edgmont (Pa. : Township)), 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. New frontiers in animal research of psychiatric illness.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2012
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Psychiatric Diagnosis and the Pathologist's View of Schizophrenia.Psychiatry (Edgmont (Pa. : Township)) · 2008
    Article
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ronald PiesDr. Pies is Professor of Psychiatry, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York; and Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, Tufts USM, Boston, Massachusetts.
SUNY Upstate Medical University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Critics of psychiatry often argue that psychiatric diagnosis lacks "objectivity," particularly when compared with diagnosis in other medical specialties. However, when one examines interrater reliability-an important component of objectivity-the kappa values for several major psychiatric disorders are generally on a par with those in other medical specialties. Nonetheless, in psychiatry as in all of general medicine, there is an irreducible element of the subjective. That is part of the "art" of medical and psychiatric practice.

Indexed as

diagnosisinterrater reliabilitykappaobjectivity

Identifiers

PMID20428307
PMCPMC2860522
OpenAlexW137181320

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.