Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35152913›Full record

ReviewPhilosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM2022

Clusters, lines and webs-so does my patient have psychosis? reflections on the use of psychiatric conceptual frameworks from a clinical vantage point.

Tibor Zoltan Kovacs, Reece William Hill, Stuart Watson, Douglas Turkington

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Tibor Zoltan KovacsEarly Intervention in Psychosis Service, Newcastle upon Tyne, Cumbria, UK. t.z.kovacs2@newcastle.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-1572-4066
Reece William HillSchool of Medical Education, Newcastle University, Framlington Place, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4HH, UK.
Stuart WatsonTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK.
Douglas TurkingtonCumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Trust, Monkwearmouth Hospital, Newcastle Road, Sunderland, SR5 1NB, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mental health professionals working in hospitals or community clinics inevitably face the realisation that we possess imperfect conceptual means to understand mental disorders. In this paper the authors bring together ideas from the fields of Philosophy, Psychiatry, Cognitive Psychology and Linguistics to reflect on the ways we represent phenomena of high practical importance that we often take for granted, but are nevertheless difficult to define in ontological terms. The paper follows through the development of the concept of psychosis over the last two centuries in the interplay of three different conceptual orientations: the categorical, dimensional and network approaches. Each of these represent the available knowledge and dominant thinking styles of the era in which they emerged and take markedly different stances regarding the nature of mental phenomena. Without particular commitment to any ontological positions or models described, the authors invite the reader into a thinking process about the strengths and weaknesses of these models, and how they can be reconciled in multidisciplinary settings to benefit the process of patient care.

Indexed as

PsychiatryPsychotic DisordersHumansInternetMental ProcessesPhilosophyCategoricalDiagnosisDimensionalEssentialismFrameworkNetworkPsychosisSchemaSchizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID35152913
PMCPMC8842805

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.