Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22682781›Full record

ReviewComprehensive psychiatry2012

Categorical vs dimensional classifications of psychotic disorders.

Melissa Potuzak, Caitlin Ravichandran, Kathryn E Lewandowski, Dost Ongür, Bruce M Cohen

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Comprehensive psychiatry, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Psychiatric diagnosis and treatment in the 21st century: paradigm shifts versus incremental integration.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Bipolar disorder risk geneJournal of psychiatry & neuroscience : JPN · 2017
    Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Melissa PotuzakPsychotic Disorders Division, McLean Hospital, 1125 Mill St., Belmont, MA 02478, USA.
Caitlin Ravichandran
Kathryn E Lewandowski
Dost Ongür
Bruce M Cohen
McLean Hospital · USHarvard University · US

Funding

Efficacy of a Cognitive Remediation Treatment Program for Bipolar DisorderK23MH091210 · NIMH · MCLEAN HOSPITAL · PI LEWANDOWSKI, KATHRYN EVE · 2011 to 2015
$749k
NIMH NIH HHS K23 MH091210
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveBoth categorical and dimensional methods appear relevant to classifying psychotic disorders; however, there is no clear consensus on the most appropriate categories and dimensions or on the best approach for constructing nosologic criteria that integrate these 2 methods. This review examines the evidence on specific dimensions and categories that would best characterize psychoses.

methodEntries in the MEDLINE database between 1980 and 2011 were searched for studies of the dimensional and/or categorical structure of psychosis. Studies were included if samples represented a spectrum of psychotic disorders and dimensions/categories were empirically derived using principal components analysis, factor analysis, or latent class analysis.

resultsMost dimensional studies observed 4 or 5 dimensions within psychosis, with positive, negative, disorganization, and affective symptom domains most frequently reported. Substance abuse, anxiety, early onset/developmental, insight, cognition, hostility, and behavioral/social disturbance dimensions appeared in some studies. Categorical studies suggested 3 to 7 major classes within psychosis, including a class similar to Kraepelin's dementia praecox and one or more classes with significant mood components. Only 2 studies compared the relative fit of empirically derived dimensions and categories within the same data set, and each had significant limitations.

conclusionThere is relatively consistent evidence on appropriate categories and dimensions for characterizing psychoses. However, the lack of studies directly comparing or combining these approaches provides insufficient evidence for definitive conclusions about their relative merits and integration. The authors provide specific recommendations for designing future studies to identify valid dimensions and/or categories of the psychoses and investigate hybrid approaches to model the structure of the underlying illnesses.

Indexed as

ComorbidityDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental DisordersHumansPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesPsychometricsPsychotic DisordersReproducibility of ResultsSchizophreniaSchizophrenic Psychology

Identifiers

PMID22682781
PMCPMC3488145
OpenAlexW2156855000

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.