Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27314005›Full record

ArticlePsychiatry journal2016

Towards a Standard Psychometric Diagnostic Interview for Subjects at Ultra High Risk of Psychosis: CAARMS versus SIPS.

P Fusar-Poli, M Cappucciati, G Rutigliano, T Y Lee, Q Beverly, I Bonoldi, J Lelli, S J Kaar, E Gago, M Rocchetti and 9 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychiatry journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed, 10 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

73 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

13 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

19 authors.

P Fusar-PoliInstitute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, London SE5 8AF, UK; OASIS Service, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London SE11, UK.
M CappucciatiInstitute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, London SE5 8AF, UK.
G RutiglianoInstitute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, London SE5 8AF, UK.
T Y LeeDepartment of Psychiatry, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea.
Q BeverlyCambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge CB21 5HH, UK.
I BonoldiInstitute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, London SE5 8AF, UK; OASIS Service, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London SE11, UK.
J LelliReal-Time Systems Laboratory, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, 56124 Pisa, Italy.
S J KaarOASIS Service, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London SE11, UK.
E GagoOASIS Service, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London SE11, UK.
M RocchettiInstitute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, London SE5 8AF, UK.
R PatelInstitute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, London SE5 8AF, UK; OASIS Service, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London SE11, UK.
V BhavsarInstitute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, London SE5 8AF, UK; OASIS Service, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London SE11, UK.
S TogninInstitute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, London SE5 8AF, UK; OASIS Service, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London SE11, UK.
S BadgerInstitute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, London SE5 8AF, UK; OASIS Service, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London SE11, UK.
M CalemInstitute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, London SE5 8AF, UK; OASIS Service, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London SE11, UK.
K LimDepartment of Psychiatry, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea.
J S KwonDepartment of Psychiatry, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea.
J PerezCambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge CB21 5HH, UK; Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0SZ, UK.
P McGuireInstitute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, London SE5 8AF, UK; OASIS Service, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London SE11, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background. Several psychometric instruments are available for the diagnostic interview of subjects at ultra high risk (UHR) of psychosis. Their diagnostic comparability is unknown. Methods. All referrals to the OASIS (London) or CAMEO (Cambridgeshire) UHR services from May 13 to Dec 14 were interviewed for a UHR state using both the CAARMS 12/2006 and the SIPS 5.0. Percent overall agreement, kappa, the McNemar-Bowker χ (2) test, equipercentile methods, and residual analyses were used to investigate diagnostic outcomes and symptoms severity or frequency. A conversion algorithm (CONVERT) was validated in an independent UHR sample from the Seoul Youth Clinic (Seoul). Results. There was overall substantial CAARMS-versus-SIPS agreement in the identification of UHR subjects (n = 212, percent overall agreement = 86%; kappa = 0.781, 95% CI from 0.684 to 0.878; McNemar-Bowker test = 0.069), with the exception of the brief limited intermittent psychotic symptoms (BLIPS) subgroup. Equipercentile-linking table linked symptoms severity and frequency across the CAARMS and SIPS. The conversion algorithm was validated in 93 UHR subjects, showing excellent diagnostic accuracy (CAARMS to SIPS: ROC area 0.929; SIPS to CAARMS: ROC area 0.903). Conclusions. This study provides initial comparability data between CAARMS and SIPS and will inform ongoing multicentre studies and clinical guidelines for the UHR psychometric diagnostic interview.

Identifiers

PMID27314005
PMCPMC4904115

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.