Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30015333›Full record

ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2018

Psychological Status of Volunteers in a Phase I Clinical Trial Assessed by Symptom Checklist 90 (SCL-90) and Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ).

Yudong Wei, Haiyan Li, Huali Wang, Shuang Zhang, Yumei Sun

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Assessment of Psychological and Social Fitness in Healthy Adults Permanently Living at Very High Altitude.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Assessment of Resilience of the Hellenic Navy Seals by Electrodermal Activity during Cognitive Tasks.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yudong WeiDrug Clinical Trial Center, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China (mainland).
Haiyan LiDrug Clinical Trial Center, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China (mainland).
Huali WangPeking University Sixth Hospital, Institute of Mental Health, Beijing, China (mainland).
Shuang ZhangDrug Clinical Trial Center, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China (mainland).
Yumei SunPeking University School of Nursing, Beijing, China (mainland).
Peking University · CNPeking University Third Hospital · CNPeking University Sixth Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND The psychological status of volunteers was investigated to provide a theoretical method for Phase I clinical trial management and result analysis. MATERIAL AND METHODS The Symptom Checklist 90 (SCL-90) and Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) were used to assess the psychological status 200 healthy Chinese volunteers. RESULTS SCL-90 results indicate that the average value of positive factors is 10.32±14.26 by self-assessment of healthy volunteers, somatization factor is 1.13±0.13, compulsive symptom factor is 1.29±0.27, interpersonal sensitivity factor is 1.31±0.21, depression factor is 1.26±0.33, anxiety factor is 1.21±0.21, hostility factor is 1.08±0.26, phobia factor is 1.05±0.18, paranoid factor is 1.12±0.23, and psychotic symptom factor is 1.17±0.26. CONCLUSIONS Compared to the norm in China, the score of each factor of healthy volunteers was relatively low, with a statistically significant difference (P<0.001). EPQ results show that P score was 4.59±2.33, E score is 13.13±4.32, N score was 6.89±5.26, and L score was 13.21±4.25 for the 200 healthy volunteers. Compared to the norm in China, the P and N scores were lower, and the E and L scores were higher, with a statistically significant difference (P<0.001).

Indexed as

Clinical Trials, Phase I as TopicAdultChecklistChinaFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansMalePersonalityPersonality AssessmentPsychological TestsPsychotic DisordersReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID30015333
PMCPMC6067027
OpenAlexW2883246998

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.