ArticleClinical neuropsychiatry2021
Clinical Psychological Assessment of Stress: A Narrative Review of the Last 5 Years.
Article in Clinical neuropsychiatry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Performance of Wearable AI in Detecting Stress Among Students: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- The relationship between personality traits and job satisfaction among physicians at designated infectious disease medical institutions in Gansu province: the mediating role of negative coping strategies.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Using Semiautomated WhatsApp Messages for Daily Stress Measurements: Integrated Usability and Feasibility Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Validity of mental and physical stress models.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2024Review
- An Intelligent Clinical Psychological Assessment Method Based on AHP-LSSVR Model.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWork-related stress typically occurs due to particularly challenging dynamics, risks and pressure. Prolonged exposure to stress may cause serious consequences on psychophysical well-being. The current study was conducted to reexamine the clinical instruments useful for evaluating the risk factors and to examine two closely linked dimensions, which may constitute protective factors such as coping strategies and satisfaction.
methodThrough a narrative review of the scientific literature of the last 5 years, carried out through the PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases, the most relevant clinical instruments used in the evaluation of stress, job satisfaction and coping strategies were examined.
resultsBased on the considered inclusion criteria, 142 articles were selected, and 10 of the most used psycho-diagnostic instruments were identified for the evaluation of the three dimensions. The selected assessment instruments were deeply discussed in order to highlight strengths and limitations.
conclusionsA variety of studies used a range of psycho-diagnostic tools in order to measure stress, coping strategies and job satisfaction. However, their integration is necessary to guarantee a complete evaluation protocol.
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.