Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33785807›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Cerebrospinal fluid findings in patients with psychotic symptoms-a retrospective analysis.

Tim W Rattay, Pascal Martin, Debora Vittore, Holger Hengel, Idil Cebi, Johannes Tünnerhoff, Maria-Ioanna Stefanou, Jonatan F Hoffmann, Katrin von der Ehe, Johannes Klaus and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Approach to acute psychosis in older adults.Singapore medical journal · 2023
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

20 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Tim W RattayDepartment of Neurodegenerative Disease, Hertie-Institute for Clinical Brain Research, and Center for Neurology, University of Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, Tübingen, 72076, Germany. tim.rattay@uni-tuebingen.de.
Pascal MartinDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Debora VittoreDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Holger HengelDepartment of Neurodegenerative Disease, Hertie-Institute for Clinical Brain Research, and Center for Neurology, University of Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, Tübingen, 72076, Germany.
Idil CebiDepartment of Neurodegenerative Disease, Hertie-Institute for Clinical Brain Research, and Center for Neurology, University of Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, Tübingen, 72076, Germany.
Johannes TünnerhoffDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Maria-Ioanna StefanouDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Jonatan F HoffmannDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Katrin von der EheDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Johannes KlausDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Julia VonderschmittDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Matthias L HerrmannDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Paula BombachDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Hazar Al BaraziDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Lena ZeltnerDepartment of Neurodegenerative Disease, Hertie-Institute for Clinical Brain Research, and Center for Neurology, University of Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, Tübingen, 72076, Germany.
Janina RichterDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Klaus HesseDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Kathrin N EcksteinDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Stefan KlingbergDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Dirk WildgruberDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
University of Tübingen · DEHertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research · DEBernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience Tübingen · DEUniversity Medical Center Freiburg · DE

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft #421769743 to PMMedizinischen Fakultät, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen Clinician Scientist Program (grant #386-0-0 to TWR and grant #367-0-0 to KNE)Medizinischen Fakultät, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen grant #2554-0-0 to HH
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In current international classification systems (ICD-10, DSM5), the diagnostic criteria for psychotic disorders (e.g. schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder) are based on symptomatic descriptions since no unambiguous biomarkers are known to date. However, when underlying causes of psychotic symptoms, like inflammation, ischemia, or tumor affecting the neural tissue can be identified, a different classification is used ("psychotic disorder with delusions due to known physiological condition" (ICD-10: F06.2) or psychosis caused by medical factors (DSM5)). While CSF analysis still is considered optional in current diagnostic guidelines for psychotic disorders, CSF biomarkers could help to identify known physiological conditions. In this retrospective, partly descriptive analysis of 144 patients with psychotic symptoms and available CSF data, we analyzed CSF examinations' significance to differentiate patients with specific etiological factors (F06.2) from patients with schizophrenia, schizotypal, delusional, and other non-mood psychotic disorders (F2). In 40.3% of all patients, at least one CSF parameter was out of the reference range. Abnormal CSF-findings were found significantly more often in patients diagnosed with F06.2 (88.2%) as compared to patients diagnosed with F2 (23.8%, p < 0.00001). A total of 17 cases were identified as probably caused by specific etiological factors (F06.2), of which ten cases fulfilled the criteria for a probable autoimmune psychosis linked to the following autoantibodies: amphiphysin, CASPR2, CV2, LGl1, NMDA, zic4, and titin. Two cases presented with anti-thyroid tissue autoantibodies. In four cases, further probable causal factors were identified: COVID-19, a frontal intracranial tumor, multiple sclerosis (n = 2), and neurosyphilis. Twenty-one cases remained with "no reliable diagnostic classification". Age at onset of psychotic symptoms differed between patients diagnosed with F2 and F06.2 (p = 0.014), with the latter group being older (median: 44 vs. 28 years). Various CSF parameters were analyzed in an exploratory analysis, identifying pleocytosis and oligoclonal bands (OCBs) as discriminators (F06.2 vs. F2) with a high specificity of > 96% each. No group differences were found for gender, characteristics of psychotic symptoms, substance dependency, or family history. This study emphasizes the great importance of a detailed diagnostic workup in diagnosing psychotic disorders, including CSF analysis, to detect possible underlying pathologies and improve treatment decisions.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAge of OnsetAutoimmune Diseases of the Nervous SystemBiomarkersCerebrospinal Fluid ProteinsChildChild, PreschoolCOVID-19HumansMiddle AgedPsychotic DisordersRetrospective StudiesSchizophreniaYoung AdultBiomarkersCerebrospinal Fluid Proteins

Identifiers

PMID33785807
PMCPMC8010098
OpenAlexW3143231673

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.