ArticleBMJ open2025
The validity and reliability of self-report measures of mentalising for adults: a protocol for systematic review.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMentalising, the capacity to understand behaviour via underlying mental states, is a key construct in psychopathology. While self-report instruments are widely used to assess mentalising, significant questions about their psychometric properties persist and no systematic review has comprehensively evaluated them using standardised criteria. This systematic review, guided by the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments () methodology, aims to: (1) identify all available self-report mentalising measures for adults; (2) evaluate the methodological quality of their validation studies; (3) synthesise and grade the quality of evidence on their measurement properties and (4) provide evidence-based recommendations for their use in research and clinical practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Five electronic databases (SCOPUS, Web of Science, PsycINFO, PubMed, ProQuest) will be searched from their inception, supplemented by a search of grey literature and reference lists. We will include studies of any design that report on at least one measurement property of a self-report measure of mentalising in adults. Two reviewers will independently screen all records, extract relevant data and assess the methodological quality of included studies using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. For each instrument, the evidence for each measurement property will be synthesised, and the overall quality of the evidence will be graded using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this systematic review will synthesise data from previously published studies, it does not require formal ethical approval. The findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed, open-access publication and presentations at scientific conferences. The results will provide a comprehensive inventory of available measures and a rigorous evaluation of their psychometric quality, creating an evidence base to guide clinicians and researchers in selecting the most appropriate instruments for mentalising assessment. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251031469.
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.