Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38765337›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Impact of COVID-19 on the Self-Report Assessment of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.

Elizabeth Meza, Gabriel Hapenciuc, Michelle A Philip, Janet T Le, Ryan J Marek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. 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
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

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

5 authors.

Elizabeth MezaPrimary Care and Clinical Medicine, Sam Houston State University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Conroe, USA.
Gabriel HapenciucPrimary Care and Clinical Medicine, Sam Houston State University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Conroe, USA.
Michelle A PhilipPrimary Care and Clinical Medicine, Sam Houston State University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Conroe, USA.
Janet T LePrimary Care and Clinical Medicine, Sam Houston State University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Conroe, USA.
Ryan J MarekPsychology and Philosophy, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent guidelines have had a substantial effect on social norms. This likely affected self-report assessment of psychopathology, namely those that assess obsessive-compulsive tendencies routinely used to screen for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). It was hypothesized that self-report assessment of OCD likely produces inflated, non-discriminating scale scores. Methods Data collection occurred prior to the COVID-19 pandemic with the aim of validating a new psychological test; however, data collection was abruptly halted in March 2020. Data collection was allowed to resume in the latter half of the year. Both groups were racio-ethnically and gender diverse. Results Self-report measures of OCD yielded inflated scores. For instance, the total obsessive-compulsive inventory-revised (OCI-R) average score of all participants went from normative levels prior to COVID-19 (M = 13.69, SD = 10.32) to an average score that was above the clinical cut-off on the OCI-R (M = 32.89; SD = 12.95) during the pandemic (t(135) = 9.66, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 1.66). Conclusions OCD-related scale scores likely produced false positives in research and practice due to COVID-19 health guidelines put in place to protect against infection that may otherwise be considered contamination fears on OCD measures.

Indexed as

compulsioncovid-19mmpi-3obsessive compulsive disordersocd and related disorder

Identifiers

PMID38765337
PMCPMC11099552

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.