Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36398145›Full record

ReviewClinical psychology in Europe2020

Efficacy of Psychological Treatments for Patients With Schizophrenia and Relevant Negative Symptoms: A Meta-Analysis.

Marcel Riehle, Mara Cristine Böhl, Matthias Pillny, Tania Marie Lincoln

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical psychology in Europe, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marcel RiehleClinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7839-077X
Mara Cristine BöhlClinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Matthias PillnyClinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2395-8433
Tania Marie LincolnClinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6674-2440
Universität Hamburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Recent meta-analyses on the efficacy of psychological treatments for the negative symptoms of schizophrenia included mostly trials that had not specifically targeted negative symptoms. To gauge the efficacy of such treatments in the target patient population - namely people with schizophrenia who experience negative symptoms - we conducted a meta-analysis of controlled trials that had established an inclusion criterion for relevant negative symptom severity. Method: We conducted a systematic literature search and calculated random-effects meta-analyses for controlled post-treatment effects and for pre-post changes within treatment arms. Separate analyses were conducted for different therapeutic approaches. Our primary outcome was reduction in negative symptoms; secondary outcomes were amotivation, reduced expression, and functioning. Results: Twelve studies matched our inclusion criteria, testing Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) vs. treatment-as-usual (k = 6), Cognitive Remediation (CR) vs. treatment-as-usual (k = 2), CBT vs. CR (k = 2), and Body-oriented Psychotherapy (BPT) vs. supportive group counseling and vs. Pilates (k = 1 each). Accordingly, meta-analyses were performed for CBT vs. treatment-as-usual, CR vs. treatment-as-usual, and CBT vs. CR. CBT and CR both outperformed treatment-as-usual in reducing negative symptoms (CBT: Hedges' g = -0.46; CR: g = -0.59). There was no difference between CBT and CR (g = 0.12). Significant pre-post changes were found for CBT, CR, and to a lesser extent for treatment-as-usual, but not for BPT. Conclusion: Although effects for some approaches are promising, more high-quality trials testing psychological treatments for negative symptoms in their target population are needed to place treatment recommendations on a sufficiently firm foundation.

Indexed as

meta-analysisnegative symptomsnonpharmacological treatmentpsychotherapyschizophrenia and psychosis

Identifiers

PMID36398145
PMCPMC9645476
OpenAlexW3090977961

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.