ReviewEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2025
A narrative review of nosology and the concept of schizophrenia: criticism and proposal.
Review in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Schizophrenia diagnostics have evolved to adapt to clinical needs and scientific advances, and the current denominations emerged at the beginning of the twentieth century. Most problems arise while integrating clinical experiences, based on historical psychopathological descriptions, with emerging translational neuroscience research. This study aimed to evaluate the state-of-the-art critics of the current schizophrenia concept and their recommendations for new concepts. We performed a narrative review of the literature and searched for studies published in English in PubMed in the last 2 years which discussed the diagnosis of schizophrenia. Two authors independently selected the studies after analyzing the abstracts. Subsequently, studies were selected for this review by consensus. Twenty-six studies were selected, and all authors, except two, had restrictions on the current categorical model for the diagnosis of schizophrenia owing to the heterogeneity of symptomatology and high frequency of comorbidity. Eight studies proposed changes to the concept of schizophrenia. The central proposition was to adopt psychotic syndrome as a core feature instead of the current concept of schizophrenia. We synthesize these proposals using psychosis as a spectrum that includes schizophrenia as a more severe case at the end of the spectrum.
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.