ArticleTheScientificWorldJournal2026
Diagnostic Performance and Subcategorization of Hikikomori Cases in Oman: A Cross-Sectional Study and Comparative Analysis of the HQ-25 and HiDE-I Assessment Tools.
Article in TheScientificWorldJournal, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHikikomori, a severe form of social withdrawal, has been predominantly studied in East Asia but remains underexplored in Middle Eastern contexts. As societal and cultural factors influence its manifestation, developing reliable diagnostic tools is critical for accurate identification and intervention. The Hikikomori Questionnaire-25 (HQ-25) serves as a self-reported screening measure, while the Hikikomori Diagnostic Evaluation Interview (HiDE-I) is used for clinical confirmation.
aimThis study aims to assess the diagnostic classification and predictive performance of the HQ-25 compared to the HiDE-I in an Omani sample, with a specific focus on refining cutoff thresholds for better classification accuracy.
methodA cross-sectional study was conducted in Oman in 2024, enrolling 454 participants from clinical and community settings. Participants were classified as either patients (psychiatric service users) or attendees (nonclinical individuals). The HQ-25 was administered at four cutoff thresholds (≥ 42, ≥ 50, ≥ 62, ≥ 75). The HiDE-I was used as the clinical criterion standard, classifying cases as pathological, at-risk, or resembling hikikomori. Diagnostic metrics-including sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves-were calculated.
resultsTable-based analyses demonstrated that at the ≥ 42 cutoff, the HQ-25 yielded 62.9% sensitivity and 57.6% specificity under the strict HiDE-I definition, and 80.0% sensitivity with 53.4% specificity under the confirmed HiDE-I definition. ROC analyses across all thresholds showed area under the curve (AUC) values ranging from 0.58 to 0.66 (strict HiDE-I) and 0.55 to 0.85 (confirmed HiDE-I), with the highest classification accuracy observed among psychiatric patients.
conclusionThe HQ-25 is a useful screening tool but insufficient on its own for diagnosing hikikomori. Incorporating both diagnostic tiers revealed its limitations and reinforced the need for structured clinical assessments to improve accuracy, especially in nonclinical 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.