ReviewSchizophrenia bulletin open2024
Rationale and Challenges for a New Instrument for Remote Measurement of Negative Symptoms.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Subjective Perceptions of Digital Phenotyping Measures of Negative Symptoms Among Individuals At Clinical High Risk for Psychosis and Their Relatives.Schizophrenia bulletin open · 2026Article
- AI-enabled passive digital phenotyping of experiential negative symptoms in schizophrenia-spectrum disorders: a narrative review on the path from sensing to clinical endpoints.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Review
- Negative symptoms in schizophrenia: Methodological challenges and emerging solutions for outcome measurement.Neuroscience applied · 2026Review
- Assessment of Negative Symptoms in Schizophrenia: From the Consensus Conference-Derived Scales to Remote Digital Phenotyping.Brain sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.