ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2016
A novel methodology for the objective ascertainment of psychic and existential damage.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Knowledge of Depression and Malingering: An Exploratory Investigation.Europe's journal of psychology · 2020Article
- The Detection of Malingering: A New Tool to Identify Made-Up Depression.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2018Article
- A Review of Approaches to Detecting Malingering in Forensic Contexts and Promising Cognitive Load-Inducing Lie Detection Techniques.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2018Review
- Methodology for the identification of vulnerable asylum seekers.International journal of legal medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Personal injury is a legal term for a physical or psychic injury suffered by the plaintiff under civil and/or tort law. With reference to non-pecuniary damages, the evidence itself of physical and/or psychic injury is not sufficient for damage compensation. The process of ascertaining impairments and/or disabilities which pertain to the "personal sphere" of the individual, such as pain and suffering, loss of amenity, and/or psycho-existential damage, poses particular difficulties in relation to the obtainment of scientific evidence. The "immateriality" and the subjective connotation of the personal sphere are, in themselves, critical issues. The clinical data obtained from the neuropsychological ascertainment find their essential prerequisite in the active participation of the examinee who, in legally relevant contexts (criminal law, civil law, insurance), may be "affected" by personal interests. The present manuscript presents a novel interdisciplinary methodology, experimented on a series of judicial and extra-judicial cases, aimed at the attainment of objectivity and accuracy eligible in relation to the judicial settlement of cases and other matters involving the ascertainment of peculiar aspects of non-pecuniary damage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27147416What 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.