Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35124869›Full record

SynthesisPsychiatry and clinical neurosciences2022

Understanding source monitoring subtypes and their relation to psychosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Stefano Damiani, Alberto Donadeo, Nicola Bassetti, Gonzalo Salazar-de-Pablo, Cecilia Guiot, Pierluigi Politi, Paolo Fusar-Poli

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Anosognosia in schizophrenia.CNS spectrums · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors.

Stefano DamianiDepartment of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5235-0788
Alberto DonadeoDepartment of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Nicola BassettiDepartment of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
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, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6992-0767
Cecilia GuiotDepartment of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Pierluigi PolitiDepartment of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Paolo Fusar-PoliDepartment of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsSource monitoring (SM) is the metacognitive ability to determine the origin of one's experiences. SM is altered in primary psychiatric psychosis, although relationships between SM subtypes, other cognitive domains and symptoms are unclear. Our aims were to synthesize evidence comparing psychosis -with and without hallucinations- and healthy controls classifying SM subtypes by source discrimination (internal/external/reality monitoring) and stimulus modality (visual/auditory/imagined/performed).

methodsThis systematic review adopted Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology and Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcomes guidelines. Core demographical and clinical parameters were extracted. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used as quality check. SM differences between (i) psychosis patients versus healthy controls and (ii) patients with versus without hallucinations were investigated via random-effect model meta-analysis. The primary effect size measure was standardized mean difference (SMD) in each SM subtype performance (error or accuracy). Heterogeneity, publication biases and meta-regressions were assessed.

resultsFive thousand two hundred and fifty-six records were screened to finally include 44 studies (1566 patients, 1175 controls). Mean Newcastle-Ottawa score was 7.41 out of 9. Few studies measured SM associations with cognition (n = 9) and symptoms (n = 19), with heterogeneous findings. SM performance across all measures was reduced in psychosis versus healthy controls (SMD = 0.458). Internal SM (SMD: errors = 0.513; accuracy = 0.733) and imagined stimuli (SMD: errors = 0.688; accuracy = 0.978) were specifically impaired. Patients with versus without hallucinations showed SM deficits only for externalizing (SMD = 0.410) and imagined/auditory (SMD = 0.498/0.277) errors.

conclusionThe proposed classifications highlight specific SM deficits for internal/imagined stimuli in psychosis, providing evidence-based indications to design and interpret future studies.

Indexed as

MetacognitionPsychotic DisordersCognitionHallucinationsHumansexternalizing biasmeta-analysispsychosisschizophrenia spectrumsource monitoring

Identifiers

PMID35124869
PMCPMC9313862

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.