SynthesisPloS one2017
Cavum septum pellucidum and first-episode psychosis: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mother infant cortisol levels and maternal childhood adversity.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Enlarged cavum septum pellucidum as a neuroimaging signature of head impact exposure.Brain communications · 2025Article
- The relationship between cavum septum pellucidum and psychopathic traits in a large forensic sample.Neuropsychologia · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the prevalence and changes of cavum septum pellucidum (CSP) in first-episode psychosis (FEP) patients.
methodsMedline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched to identify eligible studies comparing FEP patients and healthy controls from inception to Feb 29, 2016.
resultsTen cross-sectional studies and three longitudinal studies reported in ten articles met our criteria. Our meta-analysis found no significant differences in the prevalence of either "any CSP" (OR = 1.41; 95% CI 0.90-2.20; p = 0.13; I2 = 52.7%) or "large CSP" (OR = 1.10; 95% CI 0.77-1.58; p = 0.59; I2 = 24.1%) between FEP patients and healthy controls. However, the heterogeneity analysis of the prevalence of "any CSP" suggested bias in outcome reporting.
conclusionsThe results based on current evidence suggest it is unclear whether "any CSP" is a risk factor for FEP due to the heterogeneity of the studies. There is insufficient evidence to support that "large CSP" is a possible risk factor for FEP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.