Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34511062›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2021

Recognizing obsessive-compulsive disorder: how suitable is the German Zohar-Fineberg obsessive-compulsive screen?

Franziska Kühne, Tatjana Paunov, Florian Weck

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Franziska KühneDepartment of Psychology, Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 24-25, 14476, Potsdam, Germany. dr.franziska.kuehne@uni-potsdam.de.
Tatjana PaunovDepartment of Psychology, Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 24-25, 14476, Potsdam, Germany.
Florian WeckDepartment of Psychology, Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 24-25, 14476, Potsdam, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the prevalence of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), its precise identification remains challenging. With the Zohar-Fineberg Obsessive-Compulsive Screen (ZF-OCS; 5 or 6 items), a brief instrument is widely available mainly in English. As there is a lack of empirical studies on the ZF-OCS, the aim of the present study was to translate the items into German and investigate the instrument in a nonclinical sample.

methodsIn two consecutive online surveys, n = 304 and n = 51 students participated. Besides the ZF-OCS, they answered established measures on OCD, depression, health anxiety, general anxiety and health-related well-being.

resultsWhereas internal consistency was low (α = .53-.72; ω = .55-.69), retest reliability (r

conclusionsDue to heterogeneous OCD subtypes, the ZF-OCS asks diverse questions which probably resulted in the present internal consistency. Nevertheless, the results on retest reliability and validity were promising. As for other OCD instruments, divergent validity regarding general anxiety seems problematic to establish. Even so, the ZF-OCS seems valuable for screening purposes, as it is short and easy to administer, and may facilitate initiating subsequent clinical assessment. Further studies should determine the instrument's diagnostic accuracy.

Indexed as

Obsessive-Compulsive DisorderHumansPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesAssessmentObsessive-compulsive disorderPsychodiagnosticsPsychometric propertiesQuestionnaireScreening

Identifiers

PMID34511062
PMCPMC8436546

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.