Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42621505›Full record

ReviewPCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences2026

Reclaiming obsessionality: Beyond the obsessive-compulsive spectrum.

Toshiyuki Kobayashi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Toshiyuki KobayashiDepartment of Psychiatry Jichi Medical University Tochigi Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The concept of the obsessive-compulsive spectrum has exerted a major influence on contemporary psychiatry and contributed substantially to the establishment of the DSM-5 category of obsessive-compulsive and related disorders. However, the notion of obsessionality employed within this framework does not necessarily correspond to the classical psychopathological concept developed in European descriptive psychopathology. This paper reexamines the concept of obsessionality through a psychopathological comparison with neighboring phenomena, including impulsivity, addiction, autochthonous thinking, stereotypy, tic disorders, and motoric forms of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Classical descriptions by Kraepelin, Jaspers, Schneider, and others suggest that obsessionality is characterized not merely by repetitive thoughts or behaviors, but by a distinctive cognitive structure involving compelling force, accompanying anxiety, awareness of irrationality, and an ego-dystonic yet self-attributed experience. Many conditions currently incorporated into the obsessive-compulsive spectrum, particularly motoric OCD and related repetitive behaviors, appear to differ fundamentally from classical obsessionality and may be more closely related to impulsive, addictive, neurological, or developmental phenomena. To accommodate these diverse conditions, this paper proposes the provisional category of "middle-voiced repetitive phenomena," encompassing repetitive thoughts and behaviors that are neither fully voluntary nor wholly passive. We argue that the expansion of the obsessive-compulsive spectrum has obscured the distinctive cognitive features that historically defined obsessionality. Returning to the classical psychopathological definition may therefore be useful for both clinical practice and research.

Indexed as

middle voiceobsessionalityobsessive‐compulsive spectrumpsychopathologyrepetitive behavior

Identifiers

PMID42621505
PMCPMC13488539

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.