ArticleBMJ open2020
Protocol for a prospective descriptive prevalence study of catatonia in an acute mental health unit in urban South Africa.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Catatonia Psychopathology and Phenomenology in a Large Dataset.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- Assessment of catatonia and inter-rater reliability of three instruments: a descriptive study.International journal of mental health systems · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCatatonia arises from serious mental, medical, neurological or toxic conditions. The prevalence range depends on the setting and the range is anything from 7% to 63% in other countries. South African prevalence rates are currently unknown. The proposed study is a quantitative descriptive study using the Bush Francis Catatonia Screening Instrument as a screening tool with a data capturing information sheet to extract clinical information from patient folders. The study will investigate: (1) prevalence of catatonia, (2) clinical and demographic correlates associated with catatonia, (3) predictors of catatonia, (4) response to treatment and (5) subjective experience of catatonia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The setting is an acute mental health unit (MHU) within a regional, general medical hospital in Nelson Mandela Bay, South Africa, which accepts referrals from within the hospital and from outlying clinics. Participants will be recruited from inpatients in the MHU from beginning of September 2020 to end of August 2021. Most admissions are involuntarily, under the Mental Health Care Act of 2002 with an age range of 13 to over 65 years. Participants who screen positive for catatonia will be followed up after discharge for 3 months to measure outcomes. Primary outcomes will include the 12-month prevalence rate of catatonia, descriptive and other data on presentation and assessment of catatonia in the MHU. Secondary outcomes will include data on treatment response, participants' report of their subjective experience of catatonia and predictors of catatonia. Descriptive statistics, multivariate binomial logistic regression and univariate analyses will be conducted to evaluate associations between catatonia and clinical or demographic data which could be predictors of catatonia. Survival analysis will be used to examine the time to recovery after diagnosis and initiation of treatment. The 95% CI will be used to demonstrate the precision of estimates. The level of significance will be p≤0.05. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received ethical approval from the Research and Ethics Committees of the Eastern Cape Department of Health, Walter Sisulu University and Nelson Mandela University. The results will be disseminated as follows: at various presentations and feedback sessions; as part of a PhD thesis in Psychology at Nelson Mandela University; and in a manuscript that will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.