Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40032706›Full record

ArticleCerebellum (London, England)2025

The Cerebellar Neuropsychiatric Rating Scale: A New Card in the Deck.

Stefan Fritze, Roberta Ferrucci, Mario Manto

Abstract readEditorial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cerebellum (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
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

3 authors.

Stefan FritzeDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Roberta FerrucciDepartment of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Via Santa Sofia 9/1, Milan, 20122, Italy.
Mario MantoService de Neurologie, Médiathèque Jean Jacquy, CHU-Charleroi, Charleroi, 6000, Belgium. mario.manto@ulb.be.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research on the cerebellum has come a long and impressive way. While traditionally assumed as only engaged in motor control, rediscovery of early literature reports and recent studies also point to the cerebellum´s role in vestibular and cognitive affective functioning at the frontiers of psychiatry. Indeed, damage to the cerebellum often leads to consequences in cognitive affective functioning, including deficits in executive, visuo-spatial and linguistic functioning as well as affect regulation. However, in order to further disseminate these scientific advances and to provide palpable progress to clinicians, smart tools that can be applied in daily clinical practice need to be developed. In particular, rating scales, which remain the most robust clinical method in the assessment of cerebellar patients, need to be developed. Although neuropsychiatric symptoms of cerebellar disease are common, they do not conform to DSM-5 diagnostic categories of psychiatric disorders. The Cerebellar Neuropsychiatric Rating Scale (CNRS), an informant-based questionnaire reported by Daly et al., may fill this gap, allowing clinicians for the first time to capture and quantify neuropsychiatric symptoms that have often been overlooked in ataxias in the past. The CNRS may represent a reliable instrument in ataxias. The scale offers a promising tool for early detection and targeted intervention, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration between neurologists, psychiatrists, and psychologists. Future developments may refine its clinical applicability, expand its use to other neurological disorders, and integrate digital health solutions to enhance real-world assessment and treatment.

Indexed as

Cerebellar DiseasesCerebellumMental DisordersNeuropsychological TestsPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesHumansAffective syndromeAtaxiaCerebellar Neuropsychiatric Rating ScaleCerebellumCognitive

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.