SynthesisPsychological medicine2025
Instruments for assessing insight in psychosis: A systematic review of psychometric properties.
Synthesis in Psychological medicine, 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.
- Clinical and cognitive insight in schizophrenia and their relationship with neurocognition and metacognition: a narrative review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInsight into psychosis is a multidimensional construct involving awareness of illness, attribution of symptoms, and perceived need for treatment. Despite extensive research, substantial variability in how insight is conceptualized and measured continues to hinder clinical assessment and cross-study comparisons.
methodsFollowing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines and a registered International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews protocol (CRD42024558386), we conducted a systematic search across five databases (
resultsFifteen distinct insight scales were identified, comprising nine clinician-rated instruments, five self-report tools, and one hybrid format. Most demonstrated adequate content and structural validity, with 11 achieving 'very good' reliability ratings. Four scales showed the strongest overall psychometric support. However, responsiveness to clinical change was rarely tested, and cross-cultural validation remained limited. Earlier instruments primarily emphasized clinician-rated illness awareness, whereas more recent tools incorporated cognitive, neurocognitive, and subjective dimensions. Discrepancies between self-report and clinician ratings were common and often clinically meaningful. These findings underscore the need for multidimensional, psychometrically robust, and context-sensitive tools to advance both clinical assessment and research on insight in psychotic disorders.
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.