Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26300597›Full record

ReviewShanghai archives of psychiatry2015

Metacognitive training for schizophrenia: a systematic review.

Jiangling Jiang, Li Zhang, Zhipei Zhu, Wei Li, Chunbo Li

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Shanghai archives of psychiatry, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04104347 (Does Metacognitive Training Improve Insight and Clinical Outcomes in Schizophrenia?), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 5 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.

NCT04104347 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Does Metacognitive Training Improve Insight and Clinical Outcomes in Schizophrenia?

TypeinterventionalSponsorInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria de la Fundación Jiménez DíazRan2019 to 2021Enrolled252ConditionsSchizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic DisordersArmsMetacognitive training (MCT), Support group
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Metacognitive training (MCT) for psychosis: a systematic review and grade recommendations.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Effects of Metacognitive Training on Cognitive Insight in a Sample of Patients with Schizophrenia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Metacognitive training for psychosis (MCT): past, present, and future.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

5 authors.

Jiangling JiangShanghai Key Laboratory of Psychotic Disorders, Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Li ZhangShanghai Key Laboratory of Psychotic Disorders, Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Zhipei ZhuShanghai Key Laboratory of Psychotic Disorders, Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Wei LiShanghai Key Laboratory of Psychotic Disorders, Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Chunbo LiShanghai Key Laboratory of Psychotic Disorders, Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMetacognitive training (MCT) is a novel group psychotherapy method for schizophrenia, but there is, as yet, no conclusive evidence of its efficacy.

aimsConduct a meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of MCT in schizophrenia.

methodsElectronic and hand searches were conducted to identify randomized controlled trials about the effects of MCT in schizophrenia that met pre-defined inclusion criteria. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was employed to assess of risk of biases, and Cochrane Review Manager version 5.3 and R version 3.1.1 were used to conduct the data synthesis.

resultsTen trials from 54 unduplicated reports were included in the review, but differences in the methods of assessing outcomes limited the number of studies that could be included in the meta-analysis. Pooling four studies that assessed the positive symptom subscale of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) at the end of the trial identified a small but statistically significant greater reduction in the MCT group than in the control group. But pooling four studies that assessed the delusion subscale of the Psychotic Symptom Rating Scales (PSYRATS) at the end of the trial found no significant difference between the groups. Results from the qualitative assessment of the other results that could not be pooled across studies were mixed, some showed a trend in favor of MCT but many found no difference between the groups.

conclusionsThe limited number of RCT trials, the variability of the method and time of the outcome evaluation, and methodological problems in the trials make it impossible to come to a conclusion about the effectiveness of MCT for schizophrenia. More randomized trials that use standardized outcome measures, that use intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses, and that follow-up participants at regular intervals after the intervention are needed to determine whether or not MCT should become a recommended adjunctive treatment for schizophrenia.

Indexed as

meta-analysismetacognitive trainingrandomized controlled trialsschizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID26300597
PMCPMC4526827

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

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.