ArticleSchizophrenia research. Cognition2026
Keep your participants close, but your informants closer? The added value of high and low contact informants to supplement self-report for the cognitive impairment of schizophrenia.
Article in Schizophrenia research. Cognition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The input of an "informant," a person in the participant's life who can evaluate levels of functioning, can supplement potentially unreliable self-reports in schizophrenia. However, this adds to the complexity of clinical trial design. To evaluate the relative utility of information from informants and participants in a clinical trial context, we compared the participant (self-report), informant, and interviewer ratings for the Schizophrenia Cognition Rating Scale (SCoRS). Methods: We compared the participant (self-report), informant, and interviewer ratings using paired Results: The informant ratings for the SCoRS Total Score had an excellent IRR, (ICC = 0.91), similar to interviewer IRR (0.91). The highest level of impairment was rated by the interviewers, followed by the informant and participant self-reports. The correlation for the SCoRS total between the interviewer and informant ( Conclusions: Our results suggest that interviewers relied on informant reports significantly more than the participant self-report, even with an informant who spends as little as 2 h a week with a participant. Future research should assess the relationship of informant ratings with cognition or symptom scales.
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.