Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34827543›Full record

ReviewBrain sciences2021

Prevalence of Individuals at Clinical High-Risk of Psychosis in the General Population and Clinical Samples: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Gonzalo Salazar de Pablo, Scott W Woods, Georgia Drymonitou, Héctor de Diego, Paolo Fusar-Poli

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Brain sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Real-world comprehensive care of people living with schizophrenia: recommendations across different settings and clinical stages.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Gonzalo Salazar de PabloEarly Psychosis: Interventions and Clinical-detection (EPIC) Lab, Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London SE5 8AB, UK.
Scott W WoodsDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520, USA.
Georgia DrymonitouSussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke RG21 8UN, UK.
Héctor de DiegoInstitute of Psychiatry and Mental Health, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón School of Medicine, Universidad Complutense, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón (IiSGM), CIBERSAM, 28040 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-7421-738X
Paolo Fusar-PoliEarly Psychosis: Interventions and Clinical-detection (EPIC) Lab, Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London SE5 8AB, UK.
King's College London · GBHospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón · ESSussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust · GBYale University · US

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) The consistency and magnitude of the prevalence of Clinical High-Risk for Psychosis (CHR-P) individuals are undetermined, limiting efficient detection of cases. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of CHR-P individuals systematically assessed in the general population or clinical samples. (2) PRISMA/MOOSE-compliant (PROSPERO: CRD42020168672) meta-analysis of multiple databases until 21/01/21: a random-effects model meta-analysis, heterogeneity analysis, publication bias and quality assessment, sensitivity analysis-according to the gold-standard CHR-P and pre-screening instruments-leave-one-study-out analyses, and meta-regressions were conducted. (3) 35 studies were included, with 37,135 individuals tested and 1554 CHR-P individuals identified (median age = 19.3 years, Interquartile range (IQR) = 15.8-22.1; 52.2% females, IQR = 38.7-64.4). In the general population (k = 13,

Indexed as

CHRclinical high-risk of psychosisclinical settingscommunitymeta-analytic evidencepreventionschizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID34827543
PMCPMC8615691
OpenAlexW3217648189

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.