Cited by 123Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments

The independent predictive value of peritraumatic dissociation for PTSD symptomatology after type I trauma: A systematic review of prospective studies

Open access
van der Velden, Peter G., Wittmann, Lutz·2008·Clinical Psychology Review

Abstract

We conducted a systematic review of prospective studies examining the independent predictive value of peritraumatic dissociation (PD) for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptomatology following single traumatic events. Insight into the independent predictive value may help to identify victims at risk for PTSD symptomatology. For this purpose a literature search was carried out using the online databases PsycINFO, Medline/Pubmed, and PILOTS. Studies were included if they were published in peer-reviewed journals (before 2007), focused on more or less single traumatic events (Type I trauma), assessed PD within 1 month, had follow-ups 3 months or later, and which controlled for mental health problems at the time PD was assessed. The majority of the 17 identified studies showed no or only weak indications of an independent predictive value of PD for PTSD symptomatology following type I traumas. Only 3 of the 6 studies with positive results reported a strong independent predictive value of PD. Although bivariately associated with PTSD symptomatology, there is no general consensus across prospective Type I trauma studies that PD qualifies as an important independent predictor of PTSD symptomatology. Results indicate that initial mental health problems, among other factors, are better predictors of PTSD symptomatology than PD.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2008.02.006

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 52 · Cited by 123

Authors
van der Velden, P. G., & Wittmann, L.
Affiliations
University Hospital Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
Wittmann, Lutz
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-07
Volume
28
Issue
6
Pages
1009-1020
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2091752452
Cited by
123
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 10
FWCI
1.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Keywords
peritraumatic dissociation, post-traumatic stress disorder, posttraumatic stress symptoms, risk prediction, prospective study
MeSH terms
Dissociative Disorders, Humans, Predictive Value of Tests, Prospective Studies, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Stress, Psychological

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review