ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Reliability of psychiatric diagnoses in the 21
Article in Frontiers in 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
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Reliable diagnosis is a cornerstone of medical practice, yet concerns about diagnostic reliability have long haunted psychiatry. In the 1970s, the US-UK Diagnostic Project revealed striking international discrepancies in diagnostic practice. Although operationalized diagnostic criteria were introduced to improve reliability, contemporary evidence indicates that substantial problems persist. To investigate this, we conducted a large-scale international study of diagnostic reliability among medical doctors using standardized clinical case vignettes. Material and methods: In this cross-sectional study, medical doctors working in adult psychiatry across 19 countries from two continents assigned ICD-10 diagnoses to written cases. Each doctor was randomly assigned two of nine available cases. Inter-rater reliability among medical doctors was assessed using Krippendorff's Results: A total of 1,038 medical doctors provided 1,902 diagnostic assessments across nine cases. Inter-rater reliability among medical doctors was modest (Krippendorff's Conclusions: Diagnostic inter-rater reliability among medical doctors remains limited, even under standardized conditions. The observed patterns of misclassification suggest that the variability in diagnostic assessments reflects systematic differences in clinical interpretation rather than random error, pointing to challenges in assessing psychopathology as well as ambiguities in psychiatric classification.
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.