Trial reportSchizophrenia bulletin2025
Pharmacologic Augmentation of Computerized Auditory Training in Chronic Psychosis: Preliminary Findings From a Single-Site, Double-Blind Study.
Trial report 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundComputerized auditory training (AT) modestly improves symptoms, cognition, and functioning in schizophrenia. We assessed whether d-amphetamine (AMPH) or memantine (MEM) can enhance gains from 30-h of AT.
methodsAntipsychotic-medicated individuals with chronic psychosis (n = 68; mean age 47.03y; M:F = 39:29) completed up to 30 AT sessions (2-3/week; n = 50 completed 30 sessions) in 3 groups: "AMPH group" (AMPH (5 mg po) 1-h before each AT session); "MEM group" (titrated to 10 mg MEM bid and maintained that dose throughout training); "PBO group" (PBO dosed identically to either AMPH or MEM). Primary (PANSS total, MCCB Composite, WHODAS) and secondary (PANSS positive, PANSS negative, YMRS, PHQ-9, PSYRATS) outcome measures were acquired at baseline, after 10, 20, and 30 AT sessions, and 12 weeks post-training. Pill identity (active/PBO) was blind to subjects and staff.
resultsMarginally significant between-group gains for AMPH vs PBO were detected for one of three primary outcomes (WHODAS, P =.050; but not PANSS total or MCCB Composite), and for 3 of 5 secondary clinical outcomes (PANSS positive, YMRS, PSYRATS, P's≤.027-.049). Within-subject gains over time were detected for primary and secondary clinical measures for AMPH (P's≤.014-.004) and MEM (P's≤.02-.001) groups; some of these would not survive conservative correction for multiple comparisons. No measures detected symptom worsening; treatment satisfaction exceeded subjects' expectations.
conclusionsResults are mixed; drug-associated gains in several measures vs PBO suggest that these regimens may augment AT-induced functional and clinical improvement in psychosis patients, independent of changes in neurocognition. Assessment in larger samples seems warranted.
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.