Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29304845›Full record

SynthesisBMC psychiatry2018

Testing decision-making competency of schizophrenia participants in clinical trials. A meta-analysis and meta-regression.

Sorin Hostiuc, Mugurel Constantin Rusu, Ionut Negoi, Eduard Drima

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC psychiatry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Increasing participation of people with thought disorder in clinical research.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Sorin HostiucCarol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Sos.Vitan Barzesti 9, 042122 Sector 4, Bucuresti, Romania. soraer@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-4130-9402
Mugurel Constantin RusuCarol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Sos.Vitan Barzesti 9, 042122 Sector 4, Bucuresti, Romania.
Ionut NegoiCarol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Sos.Vitan Barzesti 9, 042122 Sector 4, Bucuresti, Romania.
Eduard DrimaUniversity of Medicine and Pharmacy, Galați, Romania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe process of assessing the decision-making capacity of potential subjects before their inclusion in clinical trials is a legal requirement and a moral obligation, as it is essential for respecting their autonomy. This issue is especially important in psychiatry patients (such as those diagnosed with schizophrenia). The primary purpose of this article was to evaluate the degree of impairment in each dimension of decision-making capacity in schizophrenia patients compared to non-mentally-ill controls, as quantified by the (MacCAT-CR) instrument. Secondary objectives were (1) to see whether enhanced consent forms are associated with a significant increase in decision-making capacity in schizophrenia patients, and (2) if decision-making capacity in schizophrenia subjects is dependent on the age, gender, or the inpatient status of the subjects.

methodsWe systematically reviewed the results obtained from three databases: ISI Web of Science, Pubmed, Scopus. Each database was scrutinised using the following keywords: "MacCAT-CR + schizophrenia", "decision-making capacity + schizophrenia", and "informed consent + schizophrenia."

resultsWe included 13 studies in the analysis. The effect size between the schizophrenia and the control group was significant, with a difference in means of -4.43 (-5.76; -3.1, p < 0.001) for understanding, -1.17 (-1.49, -0.84, p < 0.001) for appreciation, -1.29 (-1.79, -0.79, p < 0.001) for reasoning, and -0.05 (-0.9, -0.01, p = 0.022) for expressing a choice.

conclusionsEven if schizophrenia patients have a significantly decreased decision-making capacity compared to non-mentally-ill controls, they should be considered as competent unless very severe changes are identifiable during clinical examination. Enhanced informed consent forms decrease the differences between schizophrenia patients and non-mentally-ill controls (except for the reasoning dimension) and should be used whenever the investigators want to include more ill patients in their clinical trials. Increased age, men gender and an increased percentage of inpatients might increase the differential of decision-making incompetence compared to non-mentally-ill subjects in various dimensions of the decision-making competence as analysed by the MacCAT-CR scale, but the small number of subjects did not allow us (except for one instance) to reach statistical significance.

Indexed as

Decision MakingMental CompetencySchizophrenic PsychologyClinical Trials as TopicComprehensionFemaleHumansInformed ConsentInpatientsMaleMiddle AgedProblem SolvingRegression AnalysisResearch SubjectsInformed consentMacCAT-CRSchizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID29304845
PMCPMC5756338

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.