Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29897527›Full record

ArticleSchizophrenia bulletin2019

Transdiagnostic Risk Calculator for the Automatic Detection of Individuals at Risk and the Prediction of Psychosis: Second Replication in an Independent National Health Service Trust.

Paolo Fusar-Poli, Nomi Werbeloff, Grazia Rutigliano, Dominic Oliver, Cathy Davies, Daniel Stahl, Philip McGuire, David Osborn

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Schizophrenia bulletin, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 7 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. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Paolo Fusar-PoliEarly Psychosis: Interventions and Clinical Detection (EPIC) Lab, Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Nomi WerbeloffDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Grazia RutiglianoEarly Psychosis: Interventions and Clinical Detection (EPIC) Lab, Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Dominic OliverEarly Psychosis: Interventions and Clinical Detection (EPIC) Lab, Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Cathy DaviesEarly Psychosis: Interventions and Clinical Detection (EPIC) Lab, Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Daniel StahlDepartment of Biostatistics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Philip McGuireDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
David OsbornDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_16048
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe benefits of indicated primary prevention among individuals at Clinical High Risk for Psychosis (CHR-P) are limited by the difficulty in detecting these individuals. To overcome this problem, a transdiagnostic, clinically based, individualized risk calculator has recently been developed and subjected to a first external validation in 2 different catchment areas of the South London and Maudsley (SLaM) NHS Trust.

methodsSecond external validation of real world, real-time electronic clinical register-based cohort study. All individuals who received a first ICD-10 index diagnosis of nonorganic and nonpsychotic mental disorder within the Camden and Islington (C&I) NHS Trust between 2009 and 2016 were included. The model previously validated included age, gender, ethnicity, age by gender, and ICD-10 index diagnosis to predict the development of any ICD-10 nonorganic psychosis. The model's performance was measured using Harrell's C-index.

resultsThis study included a total of 13702 patients with an average age of 40 (range 16-99), 52% were female, and most were of white ethnicity (64%). There were no CHR-P or child/adolescent services in the C&I Trust. The C&I and SLaM Trust samples also differed significantly in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, and distribution of index diagnosis. Despite these significant differences, the original model retained an acceptable predictive performance (Harrell's C of 0.73), which is comparable to that of CHR-P tools currently recommended for clinical use.

conclusionsThis risk calculator may pragmatically support an improved transdiagnostic detection of at-risk individuals and psychosis prediction even in NHS Trusts in the United Kingdom where CHR-P services are not provided.

Indexed as

National Health ProgramsRegistriesAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesFemaleHumansLondonMaleMiddle AgedPsychotic DisordersRisk AssessmentSchizophreniaYoung Adultpsychosisrisk calculatorschizophreniatransdiagnosticvalidation

Identifiers

PMID29897527
PMCPMC6483570

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.