ReviewGeneral hospital psychiatry
Approaching differential diagnosis and decisional capacity assessment in the context of COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs: A narrative review and clinical discussion.
Review in General hospital psychiatry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pathological fixation on shared beliefs: a review and bibliometric analysis of extreme, overvalued and delusion-like beliefs.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Pooled it
- Overvalued Ideas: Conceptual Analysis and Literature Review.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Extreme overvalued beliefs and identities: revisiting the drivers of violent extremism.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCOVID-19 conspiracy theories have become widespread since the onset of the pandemic and compound the existing challenges of decisional capacity assessment. This paper aims to review the literature pertaining to decisional capacity assessment in the context of COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs and synthesize a practical approach with an emphasis on differential diagnosis and clinical pearls for the practicing physician.
methodsWe reviewed papers on decisional capacity assessment and differential diagnosis in the context of COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs. A literature search was conducted using the US National Library of Medicine's PubMed.gov resource and Google Scholar.
resultsThe resulting article content was utilized to synthesize a practical approach to decisional capacity assessment in the context of COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs. Specifically, aspects related to the history, taxonomy, evaluation, and management are reviewed.
conclusionsAppreciating the nuanced differences between delusions, overvalued ideas, and obsessions while with integrating the non-cognitive domains of capacity into the assessment are crucial to navigating the wide differential diagnosis of COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs. It is important to attempt to clarify and optimize patient decision-making abilities by addressing circumstances, attitudes, and cognitive styles specific to patients with seemingly irrational beliefs about COVID-19.
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.