Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41969055›Full record

SynthesisPsychological medicine2026

What is being measured by formal thought disorder scales? An item-level content analysis.

Vanteemar S Sreeraj, Alban Voppel, Ganesan Venkatasubramanian, Lena Palaniyappan

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Psychological medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Increasing participation of people with thought disorder in clinical research.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Vanteemar S SreerajDepartment of Psychiatry, https://ror.org/0405n5e57National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS), Bengaluru, India.ORCID 0000-0002-2946-1228
Alban VoppelDouglas Mental Health University Institute, Department of Psychiatry, https://ror.org/01pxwe438McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6768-668X
Ganesan VenkatasubramanianDepartment of Psychiatry, https://ror.org/0405n5e57National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS), Bengaluru, India.ORCID 0000-0002-0949-898X
Lena PalaniyappanDouglas Mental Health University Institute, Department of Psychiatry, https://ror.org/01pxwe438McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1640-7182

Funding

Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé FRQS: 366934Indian Council of Medical Research IIRPIG-2025-01-00768National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression NARSAD Young Investigator Grant 32574The Wellcome Trust DBT India Alliance IA/CRC/19/1/610005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFormal thought disorder (FTD), characterized by disruptions in the flow and form of thought, is a core feature of psychosis. But its measurement is fragmented across numerous rating scales, leading to its continued neglect in both research and clinical practice. To determine if different FTD scales measure the same underlying construct, we need to assess the degree to which the content of commonly used FTD scales overlaps with each other.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review to identify all standardized, clinician-rated scales used to measure FTD in psychotic disorders. From this set, we extracted individual items and derived a consensus list of 56 discrete FTD phenomena. Two independent clinical experts conducted item-to-item mapping for every scale item onto these FTD phenomena. Content overlap between scales was quantified using Jaccard Similarity Index (JSI). We determined the overall coverage achieved via several combinations of FTD scales.

resultsThe 15 scales, comprising 207 items, showed weak content overlap. The mean JSI across all scale pairs was low, and no single phenomenon featured across all scales. While some core FTD phenomena (e.g. 'incoherence', 'poor speech content', 'drifting-off') were represented in many scales, 20% of all identified features were idiosyncratic, appearing in only one scale.

conclusionsExisting FTD rating scales capture a wide but heterogeneous array of symptoms with poor content overlap. This lack of harmonization challenges the comparability of mechanistic and interventional studies. We highlight the need for a consensus-based, standardized measurement of FTD and provide a comprehensive checklist to advance the research and clinical practice.

Indexed as

Psychiatric Status Rating ScalesPsychotic DisordersThinkingHumansPsychometricschecklistcommunication disorderlanguage disorderpsychopathologypsychosesthought disorder

Identifiers

PMID41969055
PMCPMC13079215

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.