ReviewEuropean archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience2026
Disorganisation and depression: a re-examination of how we think and speak when depressed.
Review in European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- What is being measured by formal thought disorder scales? An item-level content analysis.Psychological medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Speech and Language Markers as Longitudinal Predictors of Youth Mental Health: A Systematic Review.Early intervention in psychiatry · 2025Pooled it
- Increasing participation of people with thought disorder in clinical research.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2026Review
- Expressive pragmatic language in mood and psychotic disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Linking spontaneous speech, cognition, and psychopathology across affective and psychotic disorders: A network approach.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2026Article
- Dynamics of thoughts-novel candidate marker for differential-diagnosis of mental disorders?Journal of psychiatry & neuroscience : JPN · 2026Review
- Increased self-focus and diminished informativity: referential and structural properties of narrative speech production in borderline personality disorder.Borderline personality disorder and emotion dysregulation · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Disorganised thinking in severe mental illness seriously cripples social functions. Historically, the study of disorganisation has primarily concentrated on schizophrenia, utilizing tools designed to assess formal thought disorder (FTD). This review examines the characteristics, prevalence, and possible neural correlates of FTD within the framework of depressive disorders. Our focus is on disturbances in thought, language, and communication associated with depression, alongside the relevant subjective experiences. We also discuss the challenges and opportunities in using FTD as a predictor of future illness trajectory and advocate for using the broader construct of depressive disorganisation. We review the disruption of brain networks associated with FTD, such as the salience, language, and default mode networks, within the context of depression. In conclusion, we advocate for increased focus on personal narratives, computational psychopathology, and a broader emphasis on thought dynamics to enhance the identification of disorganisation in depression. Renewed emphasis on this neglected area of psychopathology could provide insights on improving employment and social functioning for individuals affected by mood disorders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40172688What 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.