Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33543754›Full record

ArticleSchizophrenia bulletin2021

Resurrection of the Follow-Back Method to Study the Transdiagnostic Origins of Psychosis.

Jim van Os, Annette Schaub, William T Carpenter

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in Schizophrenia bulletin, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jim van OsDepartment of Psychiatry, UMC Utrecht Brain Centre, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Annette SchaubDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
William T CarpenterDepartment of Psychiatry, Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There has been a major drive in research trying to understand the onset of psychosis. Clinical-high risk (CHR) studies focus on opportunistic help-seeking samples with non-psychotic disorders and a degree of psychosis admixture of variable outcome, but it is unlikely that these represent the population incidence of psychotic disorders. Longitudinal cohort studies of representative samples in the general population have focused on development and outcome of attenuated psychotic symptoms, but typically have low power to detect transition to clinical psychotic disorder. In this issue of Schizophrenia Bulletin, Cupo and colleagues resurrect a time-honored method to examine psychosis onset: the epidemiological follow-back study, modernizing it to fit the research framework of the early intervention era. The authors set out to investigate the hypothesis that psychotic disorder represents the poorest outcome fraction of initially non-psychotic, common mental disorders and present compelling findings, unifying previous opportunistic CHR and representative cohort-based work.

Indexed as

Psychotic DisordersSchizophreniaHealth ServicesHumansIncidenceLongitudinal Studiesaffective symptomsonsetpsychosisschizophreniatransition

Identifiers

PMID33543754
PMCPMC8084420

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.