Trial reportWorld journal of clinical cases2022
Identification and predictive analysis for participants at ultra-high risk of psychosis: A comparison of three psychometric diagnostic interviews.
Trial report in World journal of clinical cases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychotic-like Experiences and Underlying Mechanisms: An Integrative Model of ADHD Symptoms, Rumination, Negative Affect, and Trauma Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Protocol for Designing a Model to Predict the Likelihood of Psychosis From Electronic Health Records Using Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning.The Permanente journal · 2024Article
- Development of the PSYCHS: Positive SYmptoms and Diagnostic Criteria for the CAARMS Harmonized with the SIPS.Early intervention in psychiatry · 2024Article
- Development of the PSYCHS: Positive SYmptoms and Diagnostic Criteria for the CAARMS Harmonized with the SIPS.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn accurate identification of individuals at ultra-high risk (UHR) based on psychometric tools to prospectively identify psychosis as early as possible is required for indicated preventive intervention. The diagnostic comparability of several psychometric tools, including the comprehensive assessment of at risk mental state (CAARMS), the structured interview for psychosis-risk syndrome (SIPS) and the bonn scale for the assessment of basic symptoms (BSABS), is unknown.
aimTo address the psychometric comparability of CAARMS, SIPS and BSABS for subjects who are close relatives of patients with schizophrenia.
methodsIn total, 189 participants aged 18-58 years who were lineal relative by blood and collateral relatives by blood up to the third degree of kinship of patients with schizophrenia were interviewed in the period of May 2017 to January 2019. Relatives of the participants diagnosed schizophrenia were excluded. All the participants were assessed for a UHR state by three psychometric tools (CAARMS, SIPS and BSABS). The psychometric diagnosis results included at risk of psychosis (UHR+), not at risk of psychosis (UHR-) and psychosis. Demographic and clinical characteristics were also measured. The inter-rater agreement was assessed for evaluation of the coherence of the three scales. Transition rates for UHR+ subjects to psychosis within 2 years were also recorded.
resultsThe overall agreement percentages were 93.12%, 92.06% and 93.65% of CAARMS and SIPS, SIPS and BSABS and CAARMS and BSABS, respectively. The overall agreement percentage of the relative functional impairment of the three groups (UHR+, not at risk of psychosis and psychosis) were 89.24%, 86.36% and 88.12%, respectively. The inter-rater reliability of the CAARMS, SIPS and BSABS total score was 0.90, 0.89 and 0.85. The inter-rater reliability was very good to excellent for all the subscales of these three instruments. For CAARMS, SIPS and BSABS, the kappa coefficient about UHR criteria agreement was 0.87, 0.84 and 0.82, respectively (
conclusionThere is good diagnostic agreement between the CAARMS, SIPS and BSABS towards identification of UHR participants who are close relatives of patients with schizophrenia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.