Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35990079›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2022

Cherise Rosen, Martin Harrow, Clara Humpston, Liping Tong, Thomas H Jobe, Helen Harrow

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
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

6 authors.

Cherise RosenDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.
Martin HarrowDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.
Clara HumpstonDepartment of Psychology, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
Liping TongAdvocate Aurora Health, Downers Grove, IL, United States.
Thomas H JobeDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.
Helen HarrowIndependent, Chicago, IL, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Delusions are transdiagnostic and heterogeneous phenomena with varying degrees of intensity, stability, and dimensional attributes where the boundaries between everyday beliefs and delusional beliefs can be experienced as clearly demarcated, fuzzy, or indistinguishable. This highlights the difficulty in defining delusional realities. All individuals in the current study were evaluated at index and at least one of six subsequential follow-ups over 20 years in the Chicago Longitudinal Study. We assessed 16 distinct delusions categorized as thought or thematic delusions. We also examined the probability of recurrence and the relationships between delusions and hallucinations, depression, anxiety, and negative symptoms. The sample consisted of 262 individuals with schizophrenia vs. affective psychosis. Thought delusions were significantly different between groups at all follow-up evaluations except the 20-year timepoint. Thematic delusions were more common than thought delusions and show a significant decreasing pattern. In general, delusional content varied over time. Referential, persecutory, and thought dissemination delusions show the highest probability of recurrence. Hallucinations were the strongest indicator for thought, thematic, and overall delusions. The formation and maintenance of delusions were conceptualized as a multimodal construct consisting of sensory, perceptual, emotional, social, and somatic embodiment of an "

Indexed as

affective psychosisdelusionshallucinationslongitudinal researchschizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID35990079
PMCPMC9388349

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.