Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22421074›Full record

ArticlePsychiatry research2012

Descriptive and numeric estimation of risk for psychotic disorders among affected individuals and relatives: implications for clinical practice.

Jehannine C Austin, Catriona Hippman, William G Honer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychiatry research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Genetic Risk Assessment in Psychiatry.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2020
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jehannine C AustinDepartment of Psychiatry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Jehannine.austin@ubc.ca
Catriona Hippman
William G Honer
University of British Columbia · CA

Funding

CIHR 88209-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Studies show that individuals with psychotic illnesses and their families want information about psychosis risks for other relatives. However, deriving accurate numeric probabilities for psychosis risk is challenging, and people have difficulty interpreting probabilistic information; thus, some have suggested that clinicians should use risk descriptors, such as "moderate" or "quite high", rather than numbers. Little is known about how individuals with psychosis and their family members use quantitative and qualitative descriptors of risk in the specific context of chance for an individual to develop psychosis. We explored numeric and descriptive estimations of psychosis risk among individuals with psychotic disorders and unaffected first-degree relatives. In an online survey, respondents numerically and descriptively estimated risk for an individual to develop psychosis in scenarios where they had: A) no affected family members; and B) an affected sibling. Participants comprised 219 affected individuals and 211 first-degree relatives participated. Affected individuals estimated significantly higher risks than relatives. Participants attributed all descriptors between "very low" and "very high" to probabilities of 1%, 10%, 25% and 50%+. For a given numeric probability, different risk descriptors were attributed in different scenarios. Clinically, brief interventions around risk (using either probabilities or descriptors alone) are vulnerable to miscommunication and potentially negative consequences-interventions around risk are best suited to in-depth discussion.

Indexed as

AdultData CollectionFamilyFemaleHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedProbabilityPsychotic DisordersRisk

Identifiers

PMID22421074
PMCPMC3723521
OpenAlexW2076820611

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.