Cited by 561Grief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchDeath, Funerary Practices, and Mourning

Consensus criteria for traumatic grief: A preliminary empirical test

Prigerson, Holly G., Shear, M. Katherine, Jacobs, Selby C., Reynolds, Charles F., Maciejewski, Paul K., Davidson, Jonathan R. T., Rosenheck, Robert, Pilkonis, Paul A. +6 more·1999·British Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: Studies suggest that symptoms of traumatic grief constitute a distinct syndrome worthy of diagnosis. Aims: A consensus conference aimed to develop and test a criteria set for traumatic grief. Method: The expert panel proposed consensus criteria for traumatic grief. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analyses tested the performance of the proposed criteria on 306 widowed respondents at seven months post-loss. Results: ROC analyses indicated that three of four separation distress symptoms (e.g. yearning, searching, loneliness) had to be endorsed as at least ‘sometimes true’ and four of the final eight traumatic distress symptoms (e.g. numbness, disbelief, distrust, anger, sense of futility about the future) had to be endorsed as at least ‘mostly true’ to yield a sensitivity of 0.93 and a specificity of 0.93 for a diagnosis of traumatic grief. Conclusions: Preliminary analyses suggest the consensus criteria for traumatic grief have satisfactory operating characteristics, and point to directions for further refinement of the criteria set.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1192/bjp.174.1.67

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Prigerson, H. G., Shear, M. K., Jacobs, S. C., Reynolds, C. F., Maciejewski, P. K., Davidson, J. R. T., Rosenheck, R., Pilkonis, P. A., Wortman, C. B., Williams, J. B. W., Widiger, T. A., Frank, E., Kupfer, D. J., & Zisook, S.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
Corresponding author
Prigerson, Holly G.
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
1999-01
Volume
174
Issue
1
Pages
67-73
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W2017185769
Cited by
561
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 28
FWCI
15.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (MH-01100, MH-31904, MH-37869, R01MH037869)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Death, Funerary Practices, and Mourning
Keywords
traumatic grief, bereavement, widowhood, diagnostic criteria, separation distress, longing, numbness, disbelief, distrust, anger, loneliness, sensitivity and specificity
MeSH terms
Grief, Humans, ROC Curve, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Stress, Psychological, Wounds and Injuries

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