Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24705808›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Neurocognitive and clinical predictors of long-term outcome in adolescents at ultra-high risk for psychosis: a 6-year follow-up.

Tim Ziermans, Sanne de Wit, Patricia Schothorst, Mirjam Sprong, Herman van Engeland, René Kahn, Sarah Durston

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. A prognostic model for predicting functional impairment in youth mental health services.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Neurocognition and functioning in adolescents at clinical high risk for psychosis.Child and adolescent psychiatry and mental health · 2023
    Article
  16. Cognitive Dysfunction as a Risk Factor for Psychosis.Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Tim ZiermansDepartment of Clinical Child and Adolescent Studies, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Sanne de WitDepartment of Psychiatry, University Medical Center Utrecht, Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neuroscience, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Patricia SchothorstDepartment of Psychiatry, University Medical Center Utrecht, Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neuroscience, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Mirjam SprongDepartment of Psychiatry, University Medical Center Utrecht, Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neuroscience, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Herman van EngelandDepartment of Psychiatry, University Medical Center Utrecht, Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neuroscience, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
René KahnDepartment of Psychiatry, University Medical Center Utrecht, Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neuroscience, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Sarah DurstonDepartment of Psychiatry, University Medical Center Utrecht, Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neuroscience, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMost studies aiming to predict transition to psychosis for individuals at ultra-high risk (UHR) have focused on either neurocognitive or clinical variables and have made little effort to combine the two. Furthermore, most have focused on a dichotomous measure of transition to psychosis rather than a continuous measure of functional outcome. We aimed to investigate the relative value of neurocognitive and clinical variables for predicting both transition to psychosis and functional outcome.

methodsForty-three UHR individuals and 47 controls completed an extensive clinical and neurocognitive assessment at baseline and participated in long-term follow-up approximately six years later. UHR adolescents who had converted to psychosis (UHR-P; n = 10) were compared to individuals who had not (UHR-NP; n = 33) and controls on clinical and neurocognitive variables. Regression analyses were performed to determine which baseline measures best predicted transition to psychosis and long-term functional outcome for UHR individuals.

resultsLow IQ was the single neurocognitive parameter that discriminated UHR-P individuals from UHR-NP individuals and controls. The severity of attenuated positive symptoms was the only significant predictor of a transition to psychosis and disorganized symptoms were highly predictive of functional outcome.

conclusionsClinical measures are currently the most important vulnerability markers for long-term outcome in adolescents at imminent risk of psychosis.

Indexed as

CognitionAdolescentCase-Control StudiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleModels, PsychologicalNeuropsychological TestsPatient Outcome AssessmentPrognosisPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesPsychotic DisordersRiskROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID24705808
PMCPMC3976376

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.