ArticleSocial psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology2019
Early intervention in psychiatry: scotomas, representativeness, and the lens of clinical populations.
Article in Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting long-term poor outcomes in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis using real-world clinical data: the OASIS1000 prospective study.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2026Article
- Evaluating representativeness: recruitment for a virtual family-based intervention focused on the transition from pediatric to adult diabetes care†.Journal of pediatric psychology · 2025Article
- Real-world long-term outcomes in individuals at clinical risk for psychosis: The case for extending duration of care.EClinicalMedicine · 2020Article
- Real-World Clinical Outcomes Two Years After Transition to Psychosis in Individuals at Clinical High Risk: Electronic Health Record Cohort Study.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2020Article
- Return to College After a First Episode of Psychosis.Schizophrenia bulletin open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evidence supporting early intervention in mental health has gained prominence in recent years, with services for first episode psychosis having led the way. Despite this momentum, however, the extent to which rapidly accumulating data has been collected in samples resembling real-world clinical populations remains unclear. Kline et al. compare and contrast two groups experiencing a first episode of psychosis: research participants, and a clinical sample receiving early intervention services at the same health centre. They find key differences-including the underrepresentation of vulnerable groups and surprisingly little overlap between the two samples-that should prompt reflection about blind spots, filters between research and clinical care, and how to tie the generation of evidence to practice-based research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30903242What 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.