Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31998405›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of mental health systems2020

The Italian ICD-11 field trial: clinical utility of diagnostic guidelines for schizophrenia and related disorders.

Mario Luciano, Gaia Sampogna, Valeria Del Vecchio, Vincenzo Giallonardo, Carmela Palummo, Benedetta Pocai, Luca Steardo, Francesca Zinno, Tahilia Rebello, Geoffrey M Reed and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of mental health systems, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
10.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. The ICD-11 is coming to town! Educational needs, paradigm shifts and innovations in mental health care practice.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2021
    Article
  3. Complex PTSD: what is the clinical utility of the diagnosis?European journal of psychotraumatology · 2021
    Review
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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Mario LucianoWHO Collaborating Center for Research and Training in Mental Health, University of Campania "L. Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4338-1371
Gaia SampognaWHO Collaborating Center for Research and Training in Mental Health, University of Campania "L. Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
Valeria Del VecchioWHO Collaborating Center for Research and Training in Mental Health, University of Campania "L. Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
Vincenzo GiallonardoWHO Collaborating Center for Research and Training in Mental Health, University of Campania "L. Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
Carmela PalummoWHO Collaborating Center for Research and Training in Mental Health, University of Campania "L. Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
Benedetta PocaiWHO Collaborating Center for Research and Training in Mental Health, University of Campania "L. Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
Luca Steardo2Dipartimento di Scienze della Salute, Università della Magna Graecia, Catanzaro, Italy.
Francesca ZinnoWHO Collaborating Center for Research and Training in Mental Health, University of Campania "L. Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
Tahilia Rebello3WHO Collaborating Centre for Capacity Building and Training in Global Mental Health, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY USA.
Geoffrey M Reed3WHO Collaborating Centre for Capacity Building and Training in Global Mental Health, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY USA.
Andrea FiorilloWHO Collaborating Center for Research and Training in Mental Health, University of Campania "L. Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" · ITColumbia University · USMagna Graecia University · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Disorders (ICD-11) has been released. In order to test the clinical consistency and the clinical utility of the proposed guidelines the World Health Organization (WHO) has carried out the Ecological Implementation Field Studies in various countries. In this paper the results of the Italian field trials on the clinical utility of the ICD-11 diagnostic guideline concerning schizophrenia and related disorders will be presented.

methodsIn Italy, field trials have been carried out at the Department of Psychiatry of the University of Campania "L. Vanvitelli". All patients showing any psychotic symptom and referring to the outpatient and inpatient units have been recruited. Patients were interviewed by two clinicians with whom they had not had any prior clinical contact. At the end of each interview, clinicians were asked to complete 12 questions about the clinical utility of the diagnostic guidelines as applied to each patient.

resultsFourteen clinicians and 100 patients have been involved. The ICD-11 clinical guidelines were perceived as easy to use, with an adequate goodness of fit, clear and understandable and with an adequate level of details and specificity to describe the essential features of the diagnoses. Clinicians rated very positively their usefulness in describing the threshold between patient's disorder and normality. Despite still very positive, the guidelines have been perceived as less useful to select a treatment, to assess patients' prognosis and to communicate with other mental health professionals.

conclusionsThe 11th revision of the chapter on Mental, Behavioural and Neurodevelopmental Disorders has made substantive changes to the conceptualization of mental disorders which could have impacted on their reliability and clinical utility. Results of the Italian field studies, in line with those reported by the international sample, highlight that ICD-11 has been rated as highly clinically useful by participating clinician, more than the ICD-10. This could be considered a good reason to be optimistic about the implementation of the ICD-11 among global clinicians.

Indexed as

Clinical utilityDiagnosisGoodness of fitICD-11Schizoaffective disorderSchizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID31998405
PMCPMC6979076
OpenAlexW3007036468

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.