ReviewClinical neuropsychiatry2024
Understanding Self-Criticism: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Approaches.
Review in Clinical neuropsychiatry, 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.
- Operationalizing the Construct of the Internal Saboteur: Development and Psychometric Validation of the Internal Saboteur Scale (ISS).European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2026Article
- The Relationship Between Early-Stage Maladaptive Schemas and Treatment Adherence in Patients Diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder in Remission.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- A cognitive model of moral and nonmoral self-criticism: the role of judgment criteria.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- The Self-Identification Program (SIP): A Clinically Implemented Third-Wave CBT Deepening Dysfunctional Self-Identification in Mood Disorders.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Self-criticism (SC) is a central transdiagnostic factor in several psychopathological conditions, influencing the development and maintenance of symptomatology. The importance of this construct has stimulated quantitative and qualitative research about it. The main purpose of this systematic review is to highlight which qualitative methods have been used most frequently and which are most suitable for studying SC. Method: We conducted a systematic search by searching the following databases to identify publications: PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and ERIC (all years up to and including January 2024). We aggregated search terms into two concepts for all databases: "self-criticism" and "qualitative analysis". Results: After removing duplicates, we screened a total of 852 records, resulting in the identification of 28 full-text articles that we assessed for eligibility. Upon closer examination, there was consensus that 16 of those studies met the inclusion criteria. Data extracted from the included studies revealed the lack of a shared approach regarding qualitative analysis of SC. Some studies employed a top-down coding approach, others used a bottom-up coding approach, and a few combined both methods. Consensual qualitative research and thematic analysis have been used most widely in the field. Furthermore, the data revealed no consensus among researchers on the conceptualization of SC. SC categories identified through qualitative analysis frequently do not align with existing theoretical models, and these categories are rarely re-examined in subsequent studies. Conclusions: There is a need to test existing theoretical models of SC through qualitative analysis and to develop new models that should be examined with qualitative and quantitative methods in different clinical populations to fully capture the complexity and multidimensionality of SC.
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.