ReviewConsortium psychiatricum2024
The Modern Concept of Schizoaffective Disorder: A Narrative Review.
Review in Consortium psychiatricum, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Polysomnographic Parameters in Schizoaffective Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Alpha psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- Does Administration of Low-Dose Aspirin Enhance the Efficacy of Psychotropic Drugs in Patients with Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia, and Schizoaffective Disorder?Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A case report of schizoaffective bipolar disorder and the impact of medication adherence on creativity.Discover mental health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSchizoaffective disorder (SAD) is one of the most complex and controversial diagnoses in clinical psychiatry. Despite the significant changes that have occurred in the conceptualization of SAD in modern classifications and the publications of recent years, many unresolved issues remain regarding the disease, from the point of view of clinical psychiatry and basic neuroscience.
aimThe purpose of this paper is to summarize published data on the concept of SAD, its clinical characteristics, cognitive profile, potential biomarkers, as well as the place of the disease in the following modern international classifications: the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 9
methodsWe undertook a review of the scientific studies in the relevant bibliographic systems and databases (eLIBRARY, PubMed) of the past 15 years. The descriptive analysis method was used to summarize the collected information. A total of 70 publications were selected for review, including different versions of international classifications of diseases (ICD and DSM-5).
resultsThere has been some improvement in the inter-rater reliability of SAD criteria in modern classifications, but this has not yet led to a clearer understanding among mental health specialists, while the various subtypes of SAD identified so far fail to account for the heterogeneity in the clinical presentation of the disorder. The dimensional approach to diagnosing SAD, according to which the intensity of psychotic and affective symptoms can fluctuate over time and they can influence one another, more accurately reflects the disease's ability to embody different forms. Basic research does not support the identification of a distinct cognitive, neuroimaging, or immunological SAD endophenotype that differs qualitatively from schizophrenia and affective psychoses.
conclusionThe conceptualization of SAD remains incomplete, and new approaches rooted in neuroscience are needed to better understand the coexistence of affective and psychotic symptoms.
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.