ReviewDer Nervenarzt2012
[Deconstructing schizophrenia. Dimensional models or division into subtypes?].
Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Evolution of Approaches to Schizophrenia Diagnostics: from Kraepelin to ICD-11.Consortium psychiatricum · 2021Article
- [Hebephrenia - a viable psychopathological construct?]Der Nervenarzt · 2018Review
- [Schizophrenic psychoses with affect-dominant symptoms : Contribution to a system-specific approach].Der Nervenarzt · 2016Article
- [Deactualization and orthostrophy. Phenomenological psychopathology of receding delusions].Der Nervenarzt · 2015Article
- [Syndromal versus nosological diagnosis].Der Nervenarzt · 2013Review
- [Early dementia as primary syndrome of schizophrenia].Der Nervenarzt · 2013Article
- [A case of Bleuler's disease? 100 years of dementia praecox or group of schizophrenias].Der Nervenarzt · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Against the background of the arrangements of ICD-11 and DSM-V, future approaches in order to diagnose schizophrenic psychoses are currently being discussed. In this context, the current concepts of schizophrenia are questioned because attempts at neurobiological validation and validation based on family and follow-up studies have not succeeded. Therefore, dimensional diagnostic models or a division into subtypes are suggested. Both of these proposals would imply a deconstruction of the current concept of schizophrenia. A historical review shows that the psychopathological roots of the current discussion can be traced back to Kurt Schneider's nominalistic concept of schizophrenia which is based upon the so-called first-rank symptoms. In contrast, the psychopathological foundation of dimensional concepts and a division into several subtypes date from contributions of Klaus Conrad and Karl Leonhard. A triaxial diagnostic system with the axes of syndromes, course types and aetiology could provide a bridge between the different approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21424413What 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.