ArticleActa psychiatrica Scandinavica2026
Validation of the Catatonia Quick Screen in the Original Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale Cohort.
Article in Acta psychiatrica Scandinavica, 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.
- Catatonic Features That May Be Mistaken for Worsening Autism Show Treatment-Associated Improvement: Implications for Later Regression.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionDelayed catatonia diagnosis may cause preventable harm. The 4-item Catatonia Quick Screen (CQS) allows rapid screening, but its specificity requires evaluation. We assessed CQS sensitivity and specificity using the original Bush Francis Catatonia Rating Scale (BFCRS) cohort.
methodsRetrospective reanalysis of data from 215 consecutive inpatient psychiatric admissions. CQS classifications were compared against BFCRS, DSM-5-TR, and ICD-11 criteria. 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated via Clopper-Pearson exact methods, treating the eight single-sign patients conservatively as false positives.
resultsAll 15 catatonia cases screened positive (true positives). The CQS demonstrated 100% sensitivity (95% CI: 78.2% to 100%), 96.0% specificity (95% CI: 92.3% to 98.3%), 65.2% positive predictive value (95% CI: 42.7% to 83.6%), and 100% negative predictive value (95% CI: 98.1% to 100%).
conclusionThe CQS showed excellent sensitivity and high specificity in this psychiatric cohort. It serves as a rapid, low-burden screening tool to accelerate clinical recognition, though positive results require formal diagnostic confirmation.
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.