Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25249398›Full record

ArticleNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2015

Q-No: a questionnaire to predict nocebo in outpatients seeking neurological consultation.

Dimos D Mitsikostas, Christina I Deligianni

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

2 authors.

Dimos D MitsikostasNeurology Department, Athens Naval Hospital, Athens, Greece, dimosmitsikostas@me.com.
Christina I Deligianni

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nocebo affects significantly adherence and treatment outcome and varies considerably among neurological conditions. We aimed to evaluate a questionnaire to predict nocebo in outpatients seeking neurological consultation. A four-item (rating range 4-20) self-fulfilled questionnaire (Q-No) was given in outpatients seeking neurological consultation at the Athens Naval Hospital. A blind to Q-No scoring neurologist rated outpatients as nocebo or no-nocebo after follow-up of >6 months. 341 (71.5 % females) patients with mean age 46.9 (±13.8) years fulfilled the requested follow-up and Q-No. The mean total score was 13.2 (±3.7). The Crombach's alpha coefficient was 0.627. Neurologist suggested 80 patients (23.7 %) as nocebo and 258 as no-nocebo (mean Q-No score = 12.4 95 % CI [12.0-12.9] and 15.8, 95 % CI [15.1-16.6], respectively). Using a cut-off at score 15 the Q-No predicts nocebo with 71.7 % specificity, 67.5 % sensitivity and 42.5 % positive predictive value. Q-No may serve as a useful tool to predict nocebo in outpatients seeking neurological consultation.

Indexed as

Nocebo EffectSurveys and QuestionnairesAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOutpatient Clinics, HospitalReferral and ConsultationROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID25249398

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.