ReviewCurrent pharmaceutical design2012
Ethical implications for clinical practice and future research in "at risk" individuals.
Review in Current pharmaceutical design, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Elucidating gut microbiota-hippocampus interactions in emerging psychosis: A new perspective for the development of early interventions for memory impairments.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Cortico-Striatal GABAergic and Glutamatergic Dysregulations in Subjects at Ultra-High Risk for Psychosis Investigated with Proton Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy.The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology · 2015Article
- Abnormal white matter integrity in antipsychotic-naïve first-episode psychosis patients assessed by a DTI principal component analysis.Schizophrenia research · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The last 15 years have witnessed a shift in schizophrenia research with increasing interest in earlier stages of illness with the hope of early intervention and ultimately prevention of psychotic illness. Large-scale longitudinal studies have identified clinical and biological risk factors associated with increased risk of psychotic conversion, which together with symptomatic and demographic risk factors may improve the power of prediction algorithms for psychotic transition. Despite these advances, 45-70% of at risk subjects in most samples do not convert to frank psychosis, but continue to function well below their age matched counterparts. The issue is of utmost importance in light of the upcoming DSM-V and the possible inclusion of the attenuated psychotic symptoms syndrome (APSS) diagnosis, with clinical and ethical implications. Clinical considerations include feasibility of reliably diagnosing the at risk state in non-academic medical centers, variable psychotic conversion rates, a non-uniform definition of conversion and extensive debate about treatment for individuals with an ill-defined outcome. On the ethical side, diagnosing APSS could lead to unnecessary prescribing of antipsychotics with long-term deleterious consequences, slow research by providing a false sense of comfort in the diagnosis, and have psychosocial implications for those who receive a diagnosis. Thus it may be prudent to engage at risk populations early and to use broad-spectrum treatments with low risk benefit ratios to relieve functional impairments, while simultaneously studying all subsets of the at risk population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.