Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39839596›Full record

ReviewClinical neuropsychiatry2024

Understanding Self-Criticism: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Approaches.

Vittoria Zaccari, Michela Fazi, Federica Scarci, Valentina Correr, Lucrezia Trani, Maria Grazia Filomena, Valentina Piccione, Stefano Joe Cattan, Maria Giovanna Ginni, Francesca D'Olimpio and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

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. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

11 authors.

Vittoria ZaccariSchool of Cognitive Psychotherapy, Rome, Italy.
Michela FaziSchool of Cognitive Psychotherapy, Rome, Italy.
Federica ScarciSchool of Cognitive Psychotherapy, Rome, Italy.
Valentina CorrerSchool of Cognitive Psychotherapy, Rome, Italy.
Lucrezia TraniSchool of Cognitive Psychotherapy, Rome, Italy.
Maria Grazia FilomenaSchool of Cognitive Psychotherapy, Rome, Italy.
Valentina PiccioneSchool of Cognitive Psychotherapy, Rome, Italy.
Stefano Joe CattanSchool of Cognitive Psychotherapy, Rome, Italy.
Maria Giovanna GinniSchool of Cognitive Psychotherapy, Rome, Italy.
Francesca D'OlimpioDepartment of Psychology, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Caserta, Italy.
Francesco ManciniSchool of Cognitive Psychotherapy, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

qualitative analysisqualitative approachesqualitative methodsqualitative researchself-criticismsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39839596
PMCPMC11745034

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.