Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32044474›Full record

ArticleBehaviour research and therapy2020

How well do hoarding research samples represent cases that rise to community attention?

Sheila R Woody, Peter Lenkic, Christiana Bratiotis, Kate Kysow, May Luu, Jesse Edsell-Vetter, Randy O Frost, Nathanael Lauster, Gail Steketee, David F Tolin

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behaviour research and therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Hoarding disorder: evidence and best practice in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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 at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Sheila R WoodyDepartment of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Electronic address: sheila.woody@ubc.ca.
Peter LenkicDepartment of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Christiana BratiotisSchool of Social Work, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Kate KysowDepartment of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
May LuuDepartment of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Jesse Edsell-VetterMetro Housing Boston, Boston, MA, USA.
Randy O FrostDepartment of Psychology, Smith College, Northampton, MA, USA.
Nathanael LausterDepartment of Sociology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Gail SteketeeSchool of Social Work, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA.
David F TolinInstitute of Living, Hartford, Connecticut and Department of Psychiatry, Yale University, CT, USA.
University of British Columbia · CABoston University · USSmith College · USUniversity of British Columbia Hospital · CAYale University · US

Funding

Neural Mechanisms of CBT Response in Hoarding DisorderR01MH101163 · NIMH · HARTFORD HOSPITAL · PI STEVENS, MICHAEL C, TOLIN, DAVID F · 2013 to 2017
$2.8M
Psychopathology of Compulsive HoardingR01MH068007 · NIMH · BOSTON UNIVERSITY (CHARLES RIVER CAMPUS) · PI STEKETEE, GAIL SUZANNE · 2005 to 2008
$1.1M
Neural Mechanisms of Compulsive HoardingR01MH074934 · NIMH · HARTFORD HOSPITAL · PI TOLIN, DAVID F · 2006 to 2009
$1.0M
Psychopathology of Compulsive HoardingR01MH068008 · NIMH · SMITH COLLEGE · PI FROST, RANDY O · 2005 to 2008
$766k
CIHR MOP-142197NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH068007NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH068008NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH074934NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH101163
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study used archival data from three different research groups and case file data from three independent community organizations to explore how well research samples reflect cases of hoarding that come to community attention. Using data from 824 individuals with hoarding, we found that research volunteers differ from community clients in several ways: community clients are older, more likely to be male and less likely to be partnered; they have lower socio-economic status and are less likely to demonstrate good or fair insight regarding hoarding severity and consequences. The homes of community clients had greater clutter volume and were more likely to have problematic conditions in the home, including squalor and fire hazards or fire safety concerns. Clutter volume was a strong predictor of these conditions in the home, but demographic variables were not. Even after accounting for the influence of clutter volume, the homes of community-based clients were more likely to have squalor. These findings suggest limitations on the generalizability of research samples to hoarding as it is encountered by community agencies.

Indexed as

Mental HealthAgedAge FactorsFemaleHoardingHoarding DisorderHumansMaleMiddle AgedResearch SubjectsSex FactorsSocioeconomic FactorsBiased samplingCommunity mental healthHoardingSampling (experimental)

Identifiers

PMID32044474
PMCPMC10636773
OpenAlexW2999753518

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.