ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Quality-checking a novel "fact sheet" on ghostly episodes.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: 'Apparitions, hauntings, and poltergeists' are universally reported phenomena with significant psychological and social implications. Despite their prevalence, the scientific study of these anomalous experiences remains fragmented, and misinformation is widespread. To address this gap, a resource titled "Fact Sheet: Ghostly Episodes at a Glance" was developed to provide an evidence-based summary for educational and clinical use. Methods: This preliminary study evaluated the Fact Sheet's content validity through an AI-based verification procedure. Additionally, we assessed its accessibility, utility, and global favorability among four groups: lay percipients, lay non-percipients (information-seekers), clinical practitioners, and amateur paranormal investigators (information-providers). Results: The Fact Sheet demonstrated strong content validity, accessibility, usefulness, and favorability across all groups. However, participants suggested refinements to enhance readability and contextual depth. Statistical analysis revealed small but significant differences in global favorability scores, with information-providers more strongly endorsing the resource than information-seekers. Conclusion: These findings underscore the importance of scientifically-grounded, accessible resources in educating diverse audiences about anomalous experiences. The study highlights the value of data-driven public education in this domain and offers specific recommendations for improving future iterations of the Fact Sheet to boost engagement and comprehension in both educational and clinical settings.
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.