ArticleSocial psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology2012
A semi-structured clinical interview for psychosis sub-groups (SCIPS): development and psychometric properties.
Article in Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Better than mermaids and stray dogs? Subtyping auditory verbal hallucinations and its implications for research and practice.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2014Article
- Changing name: changing prospects for psychosis.Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences · 2013Article
- A semi-structured clinical interview for psychosis sub-groups (SCIPS): development and psychometric properties.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2012Article
- Fear of negative evaluation is associated with delusional ideation in non-clinical population and patients with schizophrenia.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical sub-groups of schizophrenia, namely drug related, traumatic, anxiety and stress sensitivity sub-types, have been proposed for use in research, training and practice. They were developed on the basis of clinical observation but have not yet been used in research or clinical practice to any great extent.
aimsTo develop a semi-structured clinical interview for psychosis sub-groups (SCIPS) and determine the best diagnostic criteria with the highest inter-rater reliability, test-retest reliability and concurrent validity for sub-grouping patients with schizophrenia according to a newly developed classification scheme.
methodsThe SCIPS was developed based upon discussion with the clinician researchers who had developed and were using the sub-groups. Kappa coefficients were calculated between two independent diagnostic assessments with the SCIPS (for inter-rater reliability and test-retest reliability, n = 20) and between the SCIPS diagnosis and the sub-groupings as determined independently with highest achievable validity (for concurrent validity, n = 21) for patients with schizophrenia. These inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity were compared among five different sets of diagnostic criteria to determine which was most reliable and valid.
resultsA set of diagnostic criteria with the highest inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity was determined. Kappa coefficients (95% confidence interval) for the inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity were 0.93 (0.66-1.20) and 0.73 (0.47-1.00), respectively, with these diagnostic criteria.
conclusionsThe SCIPS is a promising tool with which to sub-group patients with schizophrenia according to this recently developed classification scheme. The semi-structured interview achieves acceptable inter-rater and test-retest reliability and concurrent validity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21384122What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.