Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37014876›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Comparison of clinicians' and researchers' ratings of proposed diagnostic criteria for compulsive buying-shopping disorder within a Delphi study.

Nora M Laskowski, Patrick Trotzke, Kathina Ali, Dan B Fassnacht, Mike Kyrios, Michael Häder, Astrid Müller

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. 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
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Nora M LaskowskiMedical Faculty, University Clinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Campus East-Westphalia, Ruhr-University Bochum, Luebbecke, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0213-5171
Patrick TrotzkeGeneral Psychology, Cognition and Center for Behavioral Addiction Research (CeBAR), University of Duisburg-Essen, Duisburg, Germany.
Kathina AliCollege of Education, Psychology and Social Work, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
Dan B FassnachtCollege of Education, Psychology and Social Work, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
Mike KyriosCollege of Education, Psychology and Social Work, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
Michael HäderInstitute of Sociology, Technical University of Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Astrid MüllerDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Australian National University · AUMedizinische Hochschule Hannover · DETechnische Universität Dresden · DEUniversity of Applied Sciences Erfurt · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diagnostic criteria for compulsive buying shopping disorder were recently proposed based on a Delphi consensus study including 138 experts from 35 countries. The present study represents a secondary analysis of those data. To provide further support for the validity of expert responses in the Delphi study, the sample was retrospectively divided into clinician and researcher subgroups. The two groups were compared with respect to demographic variables, their importance ratings of clinical features, possible diagnostic criteria, differential diagnoses and specifiers of compulsive buying shopping disorder. Researchers reported less years of treating/assessing individuals with compulsive buying shopping disorder and stated that they have treated/assessed individuals with compulsive buying shopping disorder less often in the last 12 months than clinicians. Responses from the two groups concerning the importance ratings of possible diagnostic criteria of compulsive buying shopping disorder converged with only few minor differences with small to moderate group effects. However, even for those criteria, the consensus threshold (≥75% agreement with the proposed criterion) was reached in both groups. The lack of differences in the responses of the two groups indicates good validity for the proposed diagnostic criteria. Future research should address the clinical applicability and diagnostic validity of the criteria.

Indexed as

Compulsive BehaviorCompulsive Personality DisorderConsumer BehaviorDelphi TechniqueHumansRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID37014876
PMCPMC10072380
OpenAlexW4362522545

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.