ArticleBMC psychiatry2026
Comparative multidimensional psychosocial profiles of major depressive disorder patients with higher versus lower anhedonia burden: a cross-sectional study.
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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAnhedonia is a core symptom of major depressive disorder (MDD) and is linked to greater severity, poorer functioning, and elevated suicide risk, yet its broader psychosocial correlates in routine clinical settings remain insufficiently characterized. This study compared multidimensional psychosocial profiles between MDD patients with higher versus lower anhedonia burden.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, outpatients aged 18-45 years with MDD were recruited between January and December 2024; 125 participants with complete and valid questionnaires were included in the final analyses. Anhedonia was assessed using the Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale (SHAPS). The SHAPS total score quantified anhedonia severity, and a dichotomized SHAPS score > 5 was used as an operational threshold for a higher anhedonia group. Depressive and anxiety symptoms, childhood trauma, family functioning, social support, personality traits, and dysfunctional attitudes were also evaluated.
resultsOverall, 52.0% of patients were classified into the higher anhedonia group. In the lower PHQ-9-M stratum, the higher anhedonia group showed lower extraversion than the lower anhedonia group (p = 0.001; q = 0.009; Hedges' g = - 0.863, 95% CI - 1.424 to - 0.296), whereas no other prespecified higher-order measures survived FDR correction. Among patients in the higher PHQ-9-M stratum, none of the measures survived FDR correction; nominal differences were observed for dysfunctional attitudes and psychoticism.
conclusionsA higher SHAPS-based anhedonia burden was common among young adult outpatients with MDD. In PHQ-9-M stratified comparisons, psychosocial distinctions between patients with higher versus lower anhedonia burden were overall modest, with lower extraversion in the lower PHQ-9-M stratum representing the primary signal. Larger multicenter longitudinal studies using multi-method assessments are warranted to validate and better characterize anhedonia-related psychosocial profiles.
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.