ReviewSchizophrenia bulletin open2025
A Review of Reviews of Patient-Reported Measures in Psychosis: Need to Consider Factors Affecting Equity and the Involvement of Patients.
Review in Schizophrenia bulletin open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hindi translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Liverpool University Neuroleptic Side-effect Rating Scale (LUNSERS): A cognitive debriefing study.Indian journal of psychiatry · 2026Article
- The Readability of Patient-Reported Measures in Early Psychosis.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patient-reported measures are increasingly valued in psychosis care and research. For patient-reported measures to reflect patient perspectives, patients must be involved in developing them. Furthermore, their development and evaluation must consider sociodemographic characteristics influencing patient experiences and outcomes and measurement. As reviews reflect the state of the field and guide clinicians/researchers in selecting measures, our aim was to evaluate literature reviews of patient-reported measures on their consideration of factors affecting equity and patient involvement. Study Design: For this review of reviews, we searched 3 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO) for reviews on patient-reported measures in psychosis. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, and descriptively synthesized and appraised the quality of included reviews. Using Cochrane's PROGRESS-Plus and a Canadian equity framework, reviews were evaluated on their consideration of sociodemographic characteristics, accessibility, and patient involvement. Study Results: Of 10 reviews (6 systematic, 4 nonsystematic; 1111 studies; 313 measures), 6 limited their search to English. Barring 2 reviews that reported the age, gender, and countries of samples in included studies, the reviews did not extract/comment on population/sociodemographic characteristics. One commented on one measure's readability; none commented on the samples' literacy levels. Four reviews considered the availability of translations; only 1 evaluated cross-cultural validity. Only 2 considered the costs of measures. Only 1 evaluated patient involvement in developing patient-reported measures. One referenced equity frameworks/standards. Conclusions: Reviews of patient-reported measures in psychosis demonstrate minimal attention to equity and patient involvement. We offer recommendations to strengthen patient-reported measures research by attending to equity, social determinants, and patient-centrism.
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.