Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32914178›Full record

SynthesisSchizophrenia bulletin2021

Implementing Precision Psychiatry: A Systematic Review of Individualized Prediction Models for Clinical Practice.

Gonzalo Salazar de Pablo, Erich Studerus, Julio Vaquerizo-Serrano, Jessica Irving, Ana Catalan, Dominic Oliver, Helen Baldwin, Andrea Danese, Seena Fazel, Ewout W Steyerberg and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Schizophrenia bulletin, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 116 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
116citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
18.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

116 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 207 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Big data and psychiatry: advances, constraints and future directions.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

56 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Gonzalo Salazar de PabloEarly Psychosis: Interventions and Clinical-detection Lab, Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London, UK.
Erich StuderusDivision of Personality and Developmental Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Julio Vaquerizo-SerranoEarly Psychosis: Interventions and Clinical-detection Lab, Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London, UK.
Jessica IrvingEarly Psychosis: Interventions and Clinical-detection Lab, Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London, UK.
Ana CatalanEarly Psychosis: Interventions and Clinical-detection Lab, Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London, UK.
Dominic OliverEarly Psychosis: Interventions and Clinical-detection Lab, Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London, UK.
Helen BaldwinEarly Psychosis: Interventions and Clinical-detection Lab, Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London, UK.
Andrea DaneseDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Seena FazelDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Ewout W SteyerbergDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Daniel StahlBiostatistics Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Paolo Fusar-PoliEarly Psychosis: Interventions and Clinical-detection Lab, Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London, UK.
King's College London · GBLeiden University Medical Center · NLUniversity of Basel · CHUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of the Basque Country · ES

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_16048Wellcome Trust 202836/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe impact of precision psychiatry for clinical practice has not been systematically appraised. This study aims to provide a comprehensive review of validated prediction models to estimate the individual risk of being affected with a condition (diagnostic), developing outcomes (prognostic), or responding to treatments (predictive) in mental disorders.

methodsPRISMA/RIGHT/CHARMS-compliant systematic review of the Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Reviews, and Ovid/PsycINFO databases from inception until July 21, 2019 (PROSPERO CRD42019155713) to identify diagnostic/prognostic/predictive prediction studies that reported individualized estimates in psychiatry and that were internally or externally validated or implemented. Random effect meta-regression analyses addressed the impact of several factors on the accuracy of prediction models.

findingsLiterature search identified 584 prediction modeling studies, of which 89 were included. 10.4% of the total studies included prediction models internally validated (n = 61), 4.6% models externally validated (n = 27), and 0.2% (n = 1) models considered for implementation. Across validated prediction modeling studies (n = 88), 18.2% were diagnostic, 68.2% prognostic, and 13.6% predictive. The most frequently investigated condition was psychosis (36.4%), and the most frequently employed predictors clinical (69.5%). Unimodal compared to multimodal models (β = .29, P = .03) and diagnostic compared to prognostic (β = .84, p < .0001) and predictive (β = .87, P = .002) models were associated with increased accuracy.

interpretationTo date, several validated prediction models are available to support the diagnosis and prognosis of psychiatric conditions, in particular, psychosis, or to predict treatment response. Advancements of knowledge are limited by the lack of implementation research in real-world clinical practice. A new generation of implementation research is required to address this translational gap.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalPrecision MedicinePrognosisPsychiatryHumansMental Disordersevidenceimplementationindividualizedpredictionpreventionprognosisriskvalidation

Identifiers

PMID32914178
PMCPMC7965077
OpenAlexW3086470062

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.