ArticleTurk psikiyatri dergisi = Turkish journal of psychiatry2025
Turkish Adaptation of the Revised Version of the Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research (DCPR-R): A Validity and Reliability Study.
Article in Turk psikiyatri dergisi = Turkish journal of psychiatry, 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.
- Cyberchondria, Health Anxiety, and Sleep Quality: An Observational Cross-Sectional Study of Adults with and Without Psychosomatic Disorders.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to adapt the Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research-Revised Semi-Structured Interview (DCPR-R-SSI) into Turkish and assess its psychometric properties.
methodThis study was conducted with two separate samples of patients diagnosed with psychosomatic disorders between the ages of 18-65 at Gazi University Psychiatry Clinic. For inter-rater reliability analysis, a sample of 100 participants was evaluated by two raters and kappa coefficient was calculated. Validity analysis used samples from both patient and community groups. For criterion validity, the relationship between DCPR diagnoses and the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS), Patient Health Questionnaire 15 (PHQ- 15), Health Anxiety Inventory (HAI) and Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS) was analyzed with the Point Biserial Correlation Coefficient. The distribution of DCPR diagnoses in the community and hospital samples was analyzed.
resultsThe mean age of the sample for inter-rater reliability analysis was 33.5±13.0 years and 55% were female. Kappa values for 14 DCPR-R diagnoses were between 0.823-0.964. The hospital and community samples included 110 people from the community and 100 from the hospital. In the validity analyses, Allostatic Overload showed a significant relationship with HADS-Depression, HADS-Anxiety, PHQ-15 and HAI. Demoralization and Demoralization with Hopelessness showed a significant relationship with all scales. Type A Behavior was weakly correlated with all scales, whereas Alexithymia was strongly correlated with the TAS. The five most common DCPR-R diagnoses were Allostatic Overload (55.2%), Demoralization (36.1%), Alexithymia (29.0%), Type A Behavior (27.6%), Irritable Mood (15.7%), Persistent Somatization (11.9%) and Health Anxiety (10.9%).
conclusionThis study demonstrated that the Turkish version of DCPR-R is a valid and reliable measurement tool.
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.