ReviewSchizophrenia bulletin2025
Considerations for Streamlining the Pathway Toward Approval of a Cognition Enhancer for Schizophrenia.
Review in Schizophrenia bulletin, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Given the difficulties of developing cognitive enhancers for schizophrenia and demonstrating their efficacy, we welcome a review of the measurement procedures and the clinical trial design recommendations developed through the collaboration of academics, industry, National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), and U.S.A. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) representatives during the Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (MATRICS) process. We provide a perspective from investigators who helped to lead the MATRICS initiative. We acknowledge some of the practical challenges in the use of the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) while pointing out that others are overstated. We suggest that a brief MCCB might be used in phase III trials when phase II results had shown no negative impact on any MCCB cognitive domain. The complexities of requiring a functional co-primary measure are discussed. For clinical trial research design to evaluate monotherapies that might have both antipsychotic and cognition-enhancing properties, we agree that the original MATRICS design recommendations may need to be revised, as those recommendations focused on the evaluation of potential adjunctive cognitive enhancers. Horan et al provide a thoughtful summary of the current challenges in obtaining approval for a new drug designed to enhance cognition in 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.