ArticleBMC psychology2026
Matters arising from Salari et al. (2025): Why it is (currently) impossible to estimate accurate prevalence rates of the Impostor Phenomenon.
Article in BMC psychology, 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
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Impostor Phenomenon (IP) describes self-perceptions of intellectual fraudulence despite external and/or objective feedback supporting one's intellectual abilities [1]. Salari and colleagues [2] provided a meta-analysis of the IP among health service providers, aggregating data from 30 studies and 11,483 participants. One of their major aims was reporting the prevalence (i.e., the proportion of a population affected by a condition) of the IP. Therefore, they analyzed studies reporting prevalence rates. While we applaud the aspiration of Salari and colleagues in their work, we discuss why it is currently not suitable to interpret prevalence rates of the IP from a conceptual and methodological perspective.
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.