ArticleEuropean archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience2024
Non-standard diagnostic assessment reliability in psychiatry: a study in a Brazilian outpatient setting using Kappa.
Article in European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The LEADING guideline: Reporting standards for expert panel, best-estimate diagnosis, and longitudinal expert all data (LEAD) methods.Comprehensive psychiatry · 2025Article
- The LEADING Guideline: Reporting Standards for Expert Panel, Best-Estimate Diagnosis, and Longitudinal Expert All Data (LEAD) Studies.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Operational criteria application does not change clinicians' opinion on the diagnosis of mental disorder: a pre- and post-intervention validity study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of Structured Diagnostic Assessments (SDAs) is a solution for unreliability in psychiatry and the gold standard for diagnosis. However, except for studies between the 50 s and 70 s, reliability without the use of Non-SDAs (NSDA) is seldom tested, especially in non-Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) countries. We aim to measure reliability between examiners with NSDAs for psychiatric disorders. We compared diagnostic agreement after clinician change, in an outpatient academic setting. We used inter-rater Kappa measuring 8 diagnostic groups: Depression (DD: F32, F33), Anxiety Related Disorders (ARD: F40-F49, F50-F59), Personality Disorders (PD: F60-F69), Bipolar Disorder (BD: F30, F31, F34.0, F38.1), Organic Mental Disorders (Org: F00-F09), Neurodevelopment Disorders (ND: F70-F99) and Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders (SSD: F20-F29). Cohen's Kappa measured agreement between groups, and Baphkar's test assessed if any diagnostic group have a higher tendency to change after a new diagnostic assessment. We analyzed 739 reevaluation pairs, from 99 subjects who attended IPUB's outpatient clinic. Overall inter-rater Kappa was moderate, and none of the groups had a different tendency to change. NSDA evaluation was moderately reliable, but the lack of some prevalent hypothesis inside the pairs raised concerns about NSDA sensitivity to some diagnoses. Diagnostic momentum bias (that is, a tendency to keep the last diagnosis observed) may have inflated the observed agreement. This research was approved by IPUB's ethical committee, registered under the CAAE33603220.1.0000.5263, and the UTN-U1111-1260-1212.
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.