ArticleBMC psychiatry2026
Clinical characteristics of auditory verbal hallucinations by spatial location: objective and subjective comparisons in schizophrenia.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe clinical characteristics of the spatial location of auditory verbal hallucinations (AVHs) has shown inconsistent results. This study compared AVHs characteristics by spatial location using both objective and subjective assessments.
methodsEighty-five schizophrenia patients scoring 3 + on the hallucination item (P3) of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale for Schizophrenia (PANSS) were included. The spatial location of AVHs was categorized using the clinician-rated Psychotic Symptom Rating Scales - Auditory Hallucinations (PSYRATS-AH) and the self-report Hamilton Schizophrenia Voice Questionnaire (HPSVQ), both administered on the same day. The proportion of patients, severity, and linearity of AVHs categorized by spatial location were compared.
resultsParticipants were categorized into three groups on each scale: inside, outside the head or both. Categorization differed across scales: on the PSYRATS-AH, 15 patients (17.6%) were classified as inside, 26 (30.6%) as outside, and 44 (51.8%) as both, while on the HPSVQ, 23 (27.1%) were inside, 40 (47.1%) outside, and 22 (25.9%) both. Of the 44 patients classified objectively as dual location, 10 (22.7%) were classified subjectively as inside the head, and 20 (45.5%) as outside the head. For both scales, total scores and emotional component scores increased in the order of inside < both < outside, with a significant linear trend.
conclusionsClinicians were more likely to classify external AVHs as dual-location. Importantly, across both clinician- and self-reported assessments, external voices consistently emerged as more severe and distressing, affirming their clinical relevance.
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.