ArticleSchizophrenia research2021
Counterpoint. Early intervention for psychosis risk syndromes: Minimizing risk and maximizing benefit.
Article in Schizophrenia research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Positive Reframing of Psychosis Risk is Perceived as Less Frightening and Stigmatising Than Negative Framing by Adolescents With and Without Prodromal Symptoms: An Experimental Simulated Feedback Study.Early intervention in psychiatry · 2025Trial
- Synergistic pathways to psychosis: understanding developmental risk and resilience factors.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026Review
- Shift in sex and age of individuals at a clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis: relation to differences in recruitment methods and effect on sample characteristics.Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Positive Reframing of Psychosis Risk Is Seen as More Beneficial and Less Harmful Than Negative Framing by Clinicians: An Experimental Videotaped Simulated Feedback Study.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2025Article
- Clinical utility of the at-risk for psychosis state beyond transition: A multidimensional network analysis.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2025Article
- Tracking the 3-year trajectory of referrals to an early psychosis intervention service.Australasian psychiatry : bulletin of Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists · 2024Article
- Variability in Cognitive Task Performance in Early Adolescence Is Associated With Stronger Between-Network Anticorrelation and Future Attention Problems.Biological psychiatry global open science · 2023Article
- Illness Phase as a Key Assessment and Intervention Window for Psychosis.Biological psychiatry global open science · 2023Review
- Psychoeducation for individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis: A scoping review.Schizophrenia research · 2023Article
- A redux of schizophrenia research in 2021.Schizophrenia research · 2022Article
- Longitudinal and cross-sectional validation of the WERCAP screen for assessing psychosis risk and conversion.Schizophrenia research · 2022Article
- Toward Generalizable and Transdiagnostic Tools for Psychosis Prediction: An Independent Validation and Improvement of the NAPLS-2 Risk Calculator in the Multisite PRONIA Cohort.Biological psychiatry · 2021Article
- The neuroscience of early intervention: Moving beyond our appeals to fear.The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry · 2021Article
- Full speed ahead on indicated prevention of psychosis.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2021Article
- Prevention of psychosis: moving on from the at-risk mental state to universal primary prevention.Psychological medicine · 2021Article
- New Electronic Health Records Screening Tools to Improve Detection of Emerging Psychosis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
- Personality Traits as Markers of Psychosis Risk in Kenya: Assessment of Temperament and Character.Schizophrenia bulletin open · 2020Article
- Community Psychosis Risk Screening: An Instrument Development Investigation.Journal of psychiatry and brain science · 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
36 authors at 20 institutions in 8 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMalhi et al. in this issue critique the clinical high risk (CHR) syndrome for psychosis.
methodResponse to points of critique.
resultsWe agree that inconsistency in CHR nomenclature should be minimized. We respectfully disagree on other points. In our view: a) individuals with CHR and their families need help, using existing interventions, even though we do not yet fully understand disease mechanisms; b) substantial progress has been made in identification of biomarkers; c) symptoms used to identify CHR are specific to psychotic illnesses; d) CHR diagnosis is not "extremely difficult"; e) the pattern of progression, although heterogenous, is discernible; f) "psychosis-like symptoms" are common but are not used to identify CHR; and g) on the point described as 'the real risk,' CHR diagnosis does not frequently cause harmful stigma. DISCUSSION: Malhi et al.'s arguments do not fairly characterize progress in the CHR field nor efforts to minimize stigma. That said, much work remains in areas of consistent nomenclature, mechanisms of disease, dissecting heterogeneity, and biomarkers. With regard to what the authors term the "real risk" of stigma associated with a CHR "label," however, our view is that avoiding words like "risk" and "psychosis" reinforces the stigma that both they and we mean to oppose. Moreover, patients and their families benefit from being given a term that describes what is happening to them.
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.