ReviewCureus2024
Evaluation of Tools to Assess Symptoms and Symptom Severity in Patients With Medically Unexplained Physical Symptoms: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A substantial portion of patients presenting to healthcare settings exhibit physical symptoms lacking clear, demonstrable organic causes. Accurate assessment of symptom severity is crucial for documenting outcomes and establishing treatment efficacy. This systematic review and narrative synthesis aims to provide researchers with insights into available and validated tools for assessing medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS). It involved comprehensive searches across electronic databases, including PubMed, Wiley, and Cochrane, adhering to PRISMA and COSMIN guidelines. The study comprised two phases: Phase 1 systematically reviewed tools for assessing MUPS symptoms and severity, while Phase 2 conducted a narrative synthesis of their measurement properties, focusing on validity and reliability. Out of 14,459 records, 191 articles were identified, leading to the recognition of 16 validated tools for assessing MUPS symptoms and severity. Most tools demonstrated excellent internal consistency and structural validity. However, the majority lacked cross-cultural validity. The choice of tools for the assessment of MUPS will assist clinicians and researchers in determining the severity of MUPS and developing a tailored treatment plan to improve the physical and psychological functioning of these patients.
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.