Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39145343›Full record

ReviewSchizophrenia bulletin open2023

Remote Assessment of Negative Symptoms of Schizophrenia.

David G Daniel, Alex S Cohen, Dawn Velligan, Phillip D Harvey, Larry Alphs, Michael Davidson, William Potter, Alan Kott, Nina Schooler, Christopher R Brodie and 3 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Schizophrenia bulletin open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

13 authors.

David G DanielSignant Health, Mclean, VA, USA.
Alex S CohenLouisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4014-6904
Dawn VelliganUniversity of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Phillip D HarveyUniversity of Miami, Miami, FL, USA.
Larry AlphsDenovo BioPharma, San Diego, CA, USA.
Michael DavidsonMinerva Neurosciences, Inc, Burlington, MA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4698-1719
William PotterIndependent Expert, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Alan KottSignant Health, Prague, Czech Republic.
Nina SchoolerSUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA.
Christopher R BrodieOtsuka Pharmaceutical Development and Commercialization, Inc, Princeton, NJ, USA.
Raeanne C MooreUniversity of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.
Pierre LindenmeyerNathan S Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research, Orangeburg, NY, USA.
Stephen R MarderSemel Institute for Neuroscience at UCLA and the VA Desert Pacific Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0288-309X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In contrast to the validated scales for face-to-face assessment of negative symptoms, no widely accepted tools currently exist for remote monitoring of negative symptoms. Remote assessment of negative symptoms can be broadly divided into 3 categories: (1) remote administration of an existing negative-symptom scale by a clinician, in real time, using videoconference technology to communicate with the patient; (2) direct inference of negative symptoms through detection and analysis of the patient's voice, appearance, or activity by way of the patient's smartphone or other device; and (3) ecological momentary assessment, in which the patient self-reports their condition upon receipt of periodic prompts from a smartphone or other device during their daily routine. These modalities vary in cost, technological complexity, and applicability to the different negative-symptom domains. Each modality has unique strengths, weaknesses, and issues with validation. As a result, an optimal solution may be more likely to employ several techniques than to use a single tool. For remote assessment of negative symptoms to be adopted as primary or secondary endpoints in regulated clinical trials, appropriate psychometric standards will need to be met. Standards for substituting 1 set of measures for another, as well as what constitutes a "gold" reference standard, will need to be precisely defined and a process for defining them developed. Despite over 4 decades of progress toward this goal, significant work remains to be done before clinical trials addressing negative symptoms can utilize remotely assessed secondary or primary outcome measures.

Indexed as

negative symptomsremote assessmentschizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID39145343
PMCPMC11207840

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.