ArticleBJPsych open2024
Determining cut-off values and predictors for the Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale: comparison between clinical and school settings.
Article in BJPsych open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neural response to reward as a potential pathway from inflammation to anhedonia in adolescents at risk for depression.Brain, behavior, & immunity - health · 2026Article
- Anhedonic Traits Do Not Impair Performance in a 3-Arm Bandit Task.Computational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
- Development and Validation of a Cross-Device Platform for Anhedonia Trend Visualization by Using Ecological Momentary Assessment and Moving Averages (Part I): Protocol for a Methodological Pilot Study.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Augmenting single-session behavioral activation for depression with delta-beta tACS: Preliminary investigation of a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized pilot clinical trial.Journal of mood and anxiety disorders · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFew previous studies have established Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale (SHAPS) cut-off values using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis and applied these values to compare predictors of anhedonia between clinical and nonclinical groups.
aimsTo determine the optimal cut-off values for the SHAPS and use them to identify predictors of anhedonia in clinical and nonclinical groups in Taiwan.
methodThis cross-sectional and correlational study used convenience sampling to recruit 160 patients from three hospitals and 412 students from two universities in northern Taiwan. Data analysis included receiver operating characteristic curve, univariate and multivariate analyses.
resultsThe optimal SHAPS cut-off values were 29.5 and 23.5 for the clinical and nonclinical groups, respectively. Moreover, two-stage analysis revealed that participants in the clinical group who perceived themselves as nondepressed, and participants in the nonclinical group who did not skip classes and whose fathers exhibited higher levels of care and protection were less likely to attain the cut-off values. Conversely, participants in the nonclinical group who reported lower academic satisfaction and were unwilling to seek help from family or friends were more likely to attain the cut-off values.
conclusionsOur findings highlight the importance of optimal cut-off values in screening for depression risk within clinical and nonclinical groups. Accordingly, the development of comprehensive, individualised programmes to monitor variation trends in SHAPS scores and relevant predictors of anhedonia across different target populations is crucial.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.