ArticleBMC psychiatry2021
Measuring clinical outcomes in children with pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome: data from a 2-5 year follow-up study.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation of Pediatric Acute-Onset Neuropsychiatric Syndrome (PANS)-Related Pediatric Treatment Evaluation Checklist (PTEC).Pediatric reports · 2025Article
- Pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome and pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorder associated with streptococcal infections: a delphi study and consensus document about definition, diagnostic criteria, treatment and follow-up.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is unclear how to best measure the complex symptom presentation of pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome (PANS).
methodsWell-characterized participants of a 2-5 year follow-up study (n = 34; 56% male) underwent clinical evaluations and completed scales assessing global symptom severity, functional impairment and specific psychiatric symptoms. We explored inter-correlations between the measures and used intraclass correlation coefficients to evaluate the agreement between clinician-, parent- and child ratings of the same constructs.
resultsRatings on symptom-specific measures varied largely between participants. Agreement between informants was excellent on functional scales, fair-to-moderate on global severity scales and mixed on symptom-specific scales. Clinician-rated global and functional measures had stronger inter-correlations with parent- and child-rated functional measures than with symptom-specific measures.
conclusionsGeneral instruments assessing global severity and functioning are well suited for the assessment and follow-up of PANS, but should be complemented by symptom-specific scales representative of core symptoms.
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.