Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31744588›Full record

ArticlePsychological medicine2021

The revised Green

Daniel Freeman, Bao S Loe, David Kingdon, Helen Startup, Andrew Molodynski, Laina Rosebrock, Poppy Brown, Bryony Sheaves, Felicity Waite, Jessica C Bird

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07350954 (Assessing the Acceptability and Feasibility of TRUST, a Brief Intervention for Paranoia in Adolescents.), which is not on this map. Cited by 144 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
144citing papers in PubMed, 6 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.

NCT07350954 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Assessing the Acceptability and Feasibility of TRUST, a Brief Intervention for Paranoia in Adolescents.

TypeinterventionalSponsorLucy JonasRan2025 to 2026Enrolled8ConditionsParanoiaArmsTRUST
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

144 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Mend the Gap: Online User-Led Adjuvant Treatment for Psychosis: A Systematic Review on Recent Findings.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Intolerance of uncertainty and psychosis: A systematic review.The British journal of clinical psychology · 2025
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Psychometric Validation of the Italian 8-Item Green Paranoid Thoughts Scale (GPTS-8).International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2026
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

84 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

10 authors.

Daniel FreemanDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford.ORCID 0000-0002-2541-2197
Bao S LoeThe Psychometrics Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
David KingdonAcademic Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Helen StartupSussex Partnership NHS Trust, UK.
Andrew MolodynskiOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Laina RosebrockDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford.
Poppy BrownDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford.
Bryony SheavesDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford.
Felicity WaiteDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford.
Jessica C BirdDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford.

Funding

Department of Health ICA-CDRF-2017-03-088Department of Health RP-2014-05-003Medical Research Council 09/160/06Medical Research Council G0902308Medical Research Council MC_PC_11007Medical Research Council MR/P02629X/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 098461/Z/12/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Green et al., Paranoid Thoughts Scale (GPTS) - comprising two 16-item scales assessing ideas of reference (Part A) and ideas of persecution (Part B) - was developed over a decade ago. Our aim was to conduct the first large-scale psychometric evaluation.

methodsIn total, 10 551 individuals provided GPTS data. Four hundred and twenty-two patients with psychosis and 805 non-clinical individuals completed GPTS Parts A and B. An additional 1743 patients with psychosis and 7581 non-clinical individuals completed GPTS Part B. Factor analysis, item response theory, and receiver operating characteristic analyses were conducted.

resultsThe original two-factor structure of the GPTS had an inadequate model fit: Part A did not form a unidimensional scale and multiple items were locally dependant. A Revised-GPTS (R-GPTS) was formed, comprising eight-item ideas of reference and 10-item ideas of persecution subscales, which had an excellent model fit. All items in the new Reference (a = 2.09-3.67) and Persecution (a = 2.37-4.38) scales were strongly discriminative of shifts in paranoia and had high reliability across the spectrum of severity (a > 0.90). The R-GPTS score ranges are: average (Reference: 0-9; Persecution: 0-4); elevated (Reference: 10-15; Persecution: 5-10); moderately severe (Reference: 16-20; Persecution:11-17); severe (Reference: 21-24; Persecution: 18-27); and very severe (Reference: 25+; Persecution: 28+). Recommended cut-offs on the persecution scale are 11 to discriminate clinical levels of persecutory ideation and 18 for a likely persecutory delusion.

conclusionsThe psychometric evaluation indicated a need to improve the GPTS. The R-GPTS is a more precise measure, has excellent psychometric properties, and is recommended for future studies of paranoia.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultDelusionsFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansInterpersonal RelationsMaleMiddle AgedParanoid DisordersPsychometricsPsychotic DisordersReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultAssessmentdelusionsparanoia

Identifiers

PMID31744588
PMCPMC7893506

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.