Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39502136›Full record

ReviewSchizophrenia bulletin open2024

Rationale and Challenges for a New Instrument for Remote Measurement of Negative Symptoms.

David Gordon Daniel, Alex S Cohen, Philip D Harvey, Dawn I Velligan, William Z Potter, William P Horan, Raeanne C Moore, Stephen R Marder

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Schizophrenia bulletin open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. 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

8 authors.

David Gordon DanielSignant Health, Blue Bell, PA, USA.
Alex S CohenLouisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4014-6904
Philip D HarveyUniversity of Miami, Miami, FL, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9501-9366
Dawn I VelliganUniversity of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
William Z PotterIndependent Expert, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
William P HoranKaruna-A Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Boston, MA, USA.
Raeanne C MooreSan Diego State University, San Diego, CA, 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

There is a broad consensus that the commonly used clinician-administered rating scales for assessment of negative symptoms share significant limitations, including (1) reliance upon accurate self-report and recall from the patient and caregiver; (2) potential for sampling bias and thus being unrepresentative of daily-life experiences; (3) subjectivity of the symptom scoring process and limited sensitivity to change. These limitations led a work group from the International Society of CNS Clinical Trials and Methodology (ISCTM) to initiate the development of a multimodal negative symptom instrument. Experts from academia and industry reviewed the current methods of assessing the domains of negative symptoms including diminished (1) affect; (2) sociality; (3) verbal communication; (4) goal-directed behavior; and (5) Hedonic drives. For each domain, they documented the limitations of the current methods and recommended new approaches that could potentially be included in a multimodal instrument. The recommended methods for assessing negative symptoms included ecological momentary assessment (EMA), in which the patient self-reports their condition upon receipt of periodic prompts from a smartphone or other device during their daily routine; and direct inference of negative symptoms through detection and analysis of the patient's voice, appearance or activity from audio/visual or sensor-based (eg, global positioning systems, actigraphy) recordings captured by the patient's smartphone or other device. The process for developing an instrument could resemble the NIMH MATRICS process that was used to develop a battery for measuring cognition in schizophrenia. Although the EMA and other digital measures for negative symptoms are at relatively early stages of development/maturity and development of such an instrument faces substantial challenges, none of them are insurmountable.

Indexed as

digital measuresecological momentary assessmentnegative symptomsrating scaleremote measurementschizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID39502136
PMCPMC11535854

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.