ArticleDer Nervenarzt2017
[Schizophrenia: pars pro toto for psychiatry? : A historical essay on the status of schizophrenia in psychiatric discourse].
Article in Der Nervenarzt, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The Ins and Outs of 'Schizophrenia': Considering Diagnostic Terms as Ordinary Linguistic Expressions.The Journal of medical humanities · 2021Article
- An Integrative Program to Reduce Stigma in Primary Healthcare Workers Toward People With Diagnosis of Severe Mental Disorders: A Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the history of psychiatry, "schizophrenia" has often been portrayed as the discipline's pars pro toto, which prototypically represents mental illness as such and which draws together the fundamental questions concerning psychiatric epistemology and practice. Taking a conceptual history approach, this essay examines how "schizophrenia" is represented in psychiatric discourse and what aspects of its representation account for the pars pro toto status. Three such aspects are identified: a pragmatic, an existential and a justificatory aspect. Following up these aspects in present day psychiatric discourse, it is concluded that "schizophrenia" is losing its special status as the representations of psychiatry and of mental illness have changed and become more diverse. Tentative conclusions regarding current debates about the abolition of "schizophrenia" are drawn.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26975653What 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.