Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39144108›Full record

ArticleSchizophrenia bulletin open2024

Sven Wasserthal, Ana Muthesius, René Hurlemann, Stephan Ruhrmann, Stefanie J Schmidt, Martin Hellmich, Frauke Schultze-Lutter, Joachim Klosterkötter, Hendrik Müller, Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg and 10 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Schizophrenia bulletin open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Brain-enriched extracellular vesicle microRNAs could help to predict onset of psychosis in people at clinical high risk.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2026
    Article
  3. 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

20 authors.

Sven WasserthalDivision of Medical Psychology, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Ana MuthesiusDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Cologne and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
René HurlemannDepartment of Psychiatry, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.
Stephan RuhrmannDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Cologne and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Stefanie J SchmidtDivision of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Martin HellmichFaculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Institute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Frauke Schultze-LutterDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1956-9574
Joachim KlosterkötterDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Cologne and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Hendrik MüllerDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Cologne and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7582-814X
Andreas Meyer-LindenbergDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Central Institute of Mental Health, University of Heidelberg/Medical Faculty Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
Timm B PoepplDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5992-5695
Henrik WalterDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy CCM, Charité, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Dusan HirjakDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Central Institute of Mental Health, University of Heidelberg/Medical Faculty Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1226-9800
Nikolaos KoutsoulerisDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Andreas J FallgatterDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Tübingen Center for Mental Health, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Andreas BechdolfDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy CCM, Charité, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Anke Brockhaus-DumkeDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, LVR-Clinic Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Christoph MulertCenter of Psychiatry, Justus-Liebig University, Giessen, Germany.
Alexandra PhilipsenDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Joseph KambeitzDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Cologne and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8988-3959

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Hypothesis: Clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P) offers a window of opportunity for early intervention and recent trials have shown promising results for the use of Study Design: In this double-blind, randomized, controlled multicenter trial, a 2 × 2 factorial design was applied to investigate the effects of NAC compared to placebo (PLC) and IPPI compared to psychological stress management (PSM). The primary endpoint was the transition to psychosis or deterioration of CHR-P symptoms after 18 months. Study Results: While insufficient recruitment led to early trial termination, a total of 48 participants were included in the study. Patients receiving NAC showed numerically higher estimates of event-free survival probability (IPPI + NAC: 72.7 ± 13.4%, PSM + NAC: 72.7 ± 13.4%) as compared to patients receiving PLC (IPPI + PLC: 56.1 ± 15.3%, PSM + PLC: 39.0 ± 17.4%). However, a log-rank chi-square test in Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed no significant difference of survival probability for NAC vs control (point hazard ratio: 0.879, 95% CI 0.281-2.756) or IPPI vs control (point hazard ratio: 0.827, 95% CI 0.295-2.314). The number of adverse events (AE) did not differ significantly between the four groups. Conclusions: The superiority of NAC or IPPI in preventing psychosis in patients with CHR-P compared to controls could not be statistically validated in this trial. However, results indicate a consistent pattern that warrants further testing of NAC as a promising and well-tolerated intervention for CHR patients in future trials with adequate statistical power.

Indexed as

clinical high riskintegrated interventionN-acetylcysteinesocial functioning

Identifiers

PMID39144108
PMCPMC11207905

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.