Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32699503›Full record

ReviewDialogues in clinical neuroscience2020

Diagnosis as dialogue: historical and current perspectives
.

Paul Hoff, Anke Maatz, Johannes Simon Vetter

Abstract readHistorical ArticleReview
In one paragraph

Review in Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 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
–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.

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.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Paul HoffUniversity Hospital of Psychiatry Zurich, Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Lenggstrasse 31, P.O. Box 363, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland.
Anke MaatzUniversity Hospital of Psychiatry Zurich, Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Lenggstrasse 31, P.O. Box 363, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland.
Johannes Simon VetterUniversity Hospital of Psychiatry Zurich, Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Lenggstrasse 31, P.O. Box 363, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ever since psychiatry emerged as a clinical discipline and field of scientific inquiry in the late 18th century, debates about diagnosis have been at its very heart. Considered by many a requirement for clinical communication as well as for systematic study, others have critiqued psychiatric diagnosis for being modeled on a medical conception of disease that is ill-suited to the specific nature of mental disorders. Based on a review of seminal positions in the conceptual history of psychiatry and an examination of their epistemological underpinnings, we propose to consider diagnosis as dialogue. Such understanding, we argue, can serve as a meta-framework that provides a conceptual and practical umbrella to encourage open-minded conversation across the diverse conceptual and experiential frameworks that are characteristic of psychiatry. In this perspective psychopathology will also reinforce the interpersonal realm as a necessary element of any clinical encounter, be it diagnostic in purpose or otherwise. Current challenges to traditional diagnostic systems like Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) and Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) are discussed in light of these considerations.
.

Indexed as

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental DisordersHistory, 18th CenturyHistory, 19th CenturyHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHumansMental DisordersPsychiatrydenosologizationdialogueHiTOPpsychiatric diagnosispsychopathologyRDoC

Identifiers

PMID32699503
PMCPMC7365291

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.