Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26519952›Full record

SynthesisSchizophrenia bulletin2016

Psychosis, Delusions and the "Jumping to Conclusions" Reasoning Bias: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Robert Dudley, Peter Taylor, Sophie Wickham, Paul Hutton

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Schizophrenia bulletin, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 122 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
122citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
18.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

122 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 334 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Effects of Metacognitive Training on Cognitive Insight in a Sample of Patients with Schizophrenia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Beta-Blocker Propranolol Modulates Decision Urgency During Sequential Information Gathering.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2018
    Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

62 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Robert DudleySchool of Psychology, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK; Early Intervention in Psychosis Service, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust, Gateshead, UK; rob.dudley@ncl.ac.uk.
Peter TaylorInstitute of Psychology, Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK;
Sophie WickhamInstitute of Psychology, Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK;
Paul HuttonSchool of Health in Social Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
University of Liverpool · GBCumbria Northumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the magnitude and specificity of the "jumping to conclusions" (JTC) bias in psychosis and delusions. We examined the extent to which people with psychosis, and people with delusions specifically, required less information before making decisions. We examined (1) the average amount of information required to make a decision and (2) numbers who demonstrated an extreme JTC bias, as assessed by the "beads task." We compared people with psychosis to people with and without nonpsychotic mental health problems, and people with psychosis with and without delusions. We examined whether reduced data-gathering was associated with increased delusion severity. We identified 55 relevant studies, and acquired previously unpublished data from 16 authors. People with psychosis required significantly less information to make decisions than healthy individuals (k= 33,N= 1935,g= -0.53, 95% CI -0.69, -0.36) and those with nonpsychotic mental health problems (k= 13,N= 667,g= -0.58, 95% CI -0.80, -0.35). The odds of extreme responding in psychosis were between 4 and 6 times higher than the odds of extreme responding by healthy participants and participants with nonpsychotic mental health problems. The JTC bias was linked to a greater probability of delusion occurrence in psychosis (k= 14,N= 770, OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.12, 2.05). There was a trend-level inverse association between data-gathering and delusion severity (k= 18;N= 794;r= -.09, 95% CI -0.21, 0.03). Hence, nonaffective psychosis is characterized by a hasty decision-making style, which is linked to an increased probability of delusions.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDelusionsHumansPsychotic Disordersbeads taskdelusionsjumping to conclusionsreasoningschizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID26519952
PMCPMC4838082
OpenAlexW2163505421

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.