ArticleBJPsych open2024
An exploratory study of psychosis risk factors in individuals who are referred but do not meet criteria for an early intervention in psychosis service.
Article in BJPsych open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe 'at-risk mental state' (ARMS) for psychosis has been critiqued for its limited prognostic ability and identification of a limited proportion of those who will develop a first episode of psychosis (FEP). Broadening the search for high-risk groups is key to improving population-level ascertainment of psychosis risk.
aimsTo explore risk enrichment in diagnostic, demographic and socio-functional domains among individuals referred to an early intervention in psychosis (EIP) service not meeting ARMS or FEP criteria.
methodA retrospective file review of 16 years of referrals to a tertiary EIP service in Ireland was undertaken. Diagnostic outcomes from standardised assessments (Structured Clinical Interview for DSM), demographic (age, gender, family history, nationality) and socio-occupational (relationship status, living status, working status) variables were compiled for those not meeting criteria. These were compared with individuals diagnosed with an FEP in the same period.
resultsFrom 2005 to 2021 inclusive, of 2025 index assessments, 27.6% (
conclusionsThis group is enriched for psychosis risk factors. They are a larger group than those meeting ARMS criteria, a finding that may reflect EIP service configuration. They may be an important focus for further study in the search for at-risk populations beyond the current ARMS model.
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.