Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25987859›Full record

ReviewDialogues in clinical neuroscience2015

Focus on psychosis.

Wolfgang Gaebel, Jürgen Zielasek

Abstract readHistorical ArticleReview
In one paragraph

Review in Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Differential Association of theInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Psychedelics action and schizophrenia.Pharmacological reports : PR · 2023
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The future of diagnosis in clinical neurosciences: Comparing multiple sclerosis and schizophrenia.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2023
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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.

Wolfgang GaebelDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Jürgen ZielasekDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The concept of psychosis has been shaped by traditions in the concepts of mental disorders during the last 170 years. The term "psychosis" still lacks a unified definition, but denotes a clinical construct composed of several symptoms. Delusions, hallucinations, and thought disorders are the core clinical features. The search for a common denominator of psychotic symptoms points toward combinations of neuropsychological mechanisms resulting in reality distortion. To advance the elucidation of the causes and the pathophysiology of the symptoms of psychosis, a deconstruction of the term into its component symptoms is therefore warranted. Current research is dealing with the delineation from "normality", the genetic underpinnings, and the causes and pathophysiology of the symptoms of psychosis.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental DisordersHistory, 19th CenturyHumansPsychotic Disordersclassification of mental disordershistory of psychosispsychosisschizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID25987859
PMCPMC4421906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.