Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39279372›Full record

ArticleWorld psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA)2024

Sensitivity of the familial high-risk approach for the prediction of future psychosis: a total population study.

Colm Healy, Ulla Lång, Kirstie O'Hare, Juha Veijola, Karen O'Connor, Marius Lahti-Pulkkinen, Eero Kajantie, Ian Kelleher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

8 authors.

Colm HealyCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, Division of Psychiatry, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Ulla LångCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, Division of Psychiatry, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Kirstie O'HareCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, Division of Psychiatry, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Juha VeijolaFaculty of Medicine, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Karen O'ConnorRISE, Early Intervention in Psychosis Service & Home Based Treatment Team, South Lee Mental Health Services, Cork, Ireland.
Marius Lahti-PulkkinenDepartment of Psychology and Logopedics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Eero KajantieFinnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Public Health Unit, Helsinki, Finland.
Ian KelleherCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, Division of Psychiatry, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Children who have a parent with a psychotic disorder present an increased risk of developing psychosis. It is unclear to date, however, what proportion of all psychosis cases in the population are captured by a familial high-risk for psychosis (FHR-P) approach. This is essential information for prevention research and health service planning, as it tells us the total proportion of psychosis cases that this high-risk approach would prevent if an effective intervention were developed. Through a prospective cohort study including all individuals born in Finland between January 1, 1987 and December 31, 1992, we examined the absolute risk and total proportion of psychosis cases captured by FHR-P and by a transdiagnostic familial risk approach (TDFR-P) based on parental inpatient hospitalization for any mental disorder. Outcomes of non-affective psychosis (ICD-10: F20-F29) and schizophrenia (ICD-10: F20) were identified in the index children up to December 31, 2016. Of the index children (N=368,937), 1.5% (N=5,544) met FHR-P criteria and 10.3% (N=38,040) met TDFR-P criteria. By the study endpoint, 1.9% (N=6,966) of the index children had been diagnosed with non-affective psychosis and 0.5% (N=1,846) with schizophrenia. In terms of sensitivity, of all non-affective psychosis cases in the index children, 5.2% (N=355) were captured by FHR-P and 20.6% (N=1,413) by TDFR-P approaches. The absolute risk of non-affective psychosis was 6.4% in those with FHR-P, and 3.7% in those with TDFR-P. There was notable variation in the sensitivity and total proportion of FHR-P and TDFR-P cases captured based on the age at which FHR-P/TDFR-P were determined. The absolute risk for psychosis, however, was relatively time invariant. These metrics are essential to inform intervention strategies for psychosis risk requiring pragmatic decision-making.

Indexed as

familial high‐risk approachpredictionpreventionPsychosispsychosis riskschizophreniasensitivitytransdiagnostic approach

Identifiers

PMID39279372
PMCPMC11403180

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.