ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025
Targeting Psychotic and Cognitive Dimensions in Clinical High Risk for Psychosis (CHR-P): A Narrative Review.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Paradoxical Effect of Cannabis Use on Cognition in Chronic Psychotic Disorders.Pathophysiology : the official journal of the International Society for Pathophysiology · 2026Article
- Mood and Metabolism: A Bayesian Network Analysis of Depressive Symptoms in Major Depressive Disorder and Metabolic Syndrome.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Autism in Adulthood: Psychiatric Comorbidity in High-Functioning Autistic Adults in an Outpatient Clinical Population.NeuroSci · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Schizophrenia (SCZ) is a debilitating disorder with substantial societal and economic impacts. The clinical high risk of psychosis (CHR-P) state generally precedes the onset of SCZ, offering a window for early intervention. However, treatment guidelines for CHR-P individuals remain contentious, particularly regarding antipsychotic (AP) medications. Although several studies have examined the effects of APs on reducing the risk of conversion to psychosis, the novelty of this narrative review lies in its focus on differentiating APs' effects on positive and negative symptoms, as well as cognitive functioning, in CHR-P individuals. Evidence suggests that APs may be cautiously recommended for attenuated positive symptoms to stabilize individuals for psychological interventions, but their use in treating negative symptoms is generally discouraged due to limited efficacy and potential side effects. Similarly, the effects of APs on cognitive abilities remain underexplored, with results indicating a lack of significant neurocognitive outcomes. In conclusion, APs' use in CHR-P patients requires careful consideration due to limited evidence and potential adverse effects. Future research should focus on individual symptom domains and treatment modalities to optimize outcomes in this critical population. Until then, a cautious approach emphasizing non-pharmacological interventions is advisable.
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.