ReviewEuropean psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists2026
Increasing participation of people with thought disorder in clinical research.
Review in European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists, 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
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThought disorder (TD) is a core feature of severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, characterized by disruptions in speech, language, and communication. People with TD face unique barriers that hinder their involvement in research, both as participants and as partners. Their systematic underrepresentation in psychiatric research is driven by pervasive assumptions about their decisional capacity, willingness to participate, and ability to engage in research. This perpetuates a biased evidence base, likely hindering the therapeutic progress toward addressing this core problem.
methodsThis review, informed by professional (clinical and research) and lived (bottom-up and phenomenological) experience of TD, examines how flawed assumptions regarding capacity, engagement, and participatory abilities serve as active barriers to inclusion.
resultsWe argue for a shift toward supported inclusion through tailored capacity assessments, enhanced informed consent procedures, targeted training of research personnel, and systemic institutional practices. Incorporating lived experiences of those with TD as research partners is integral to this approach, fostering co-production of research that is more valid, inclusive, and applicable.
conclusionsWithout these inclusion-focused changes, the development of treatments for TD is likely to have very slow progress and a critical segment of the severely unwell population will continue to be underrepresented from the scientific process, undermining both the utility and generalizability of psychiatric research.
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.