SynthesisBMC psychiatry2025
The diagnostic role of exploratory eye movement in schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC psychiatry, 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.
- Exploratory eye movement characteristics to aid screening of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder: A cross-sectional outpatient study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Eye Movement Patterns as Robust Biomarkers for Schizophrenia Identification Using a Novel Data Transformation Approach.Journal of eye movement research · 2026Article
- Eye tracking as a digital biomarker in neurodegenerative diseases.Journal of neurology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeExploratory eye movement (EEM) parameters, such as the number of eye fixations (NEF), the responsive search score (RSS), and the discriminant index (D score), serve as reliable biomarkers unaffected by medication or disease progression. However, the diagnostic accuracy of these parameters remains uncertain due to inconsistent thresholds and limited validation in small-sample studies. This study aimed to explore reliable diagnostic thresholds for NEF, RSS and D score values for clinical use.
methodsEight databases were used to identify relevant studies with tailored search strategies. Two independent reviewers screened all retrieved literatures according to pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Key information of included studies was extracted in standardized tables. Diagnostic Accuracy-2 instrument (QUADAS-2) was used to assess quality of included studies. Two-by-two tables were created and were used to recompute the sensitivity and specificity. The cut-off for the D score was pre-specified based on prior studies, sensitivity and specificity were calculated for all indicators, with heterogeneity assessed by Cochrane Q test. For the RSS and NEF, logistic regression was used to model the diagnostic prediction probability of schizophrenia. ROC curves were constructed by evaluating all possible thresholds, and Youden's Index was employed to determine optimal cut-offs.
resultsThe D score was analysed on the basis of 1895 samples from 9 articles and achieved an overall accuracy of 90%, with a sensitivity of 79% and a specificity of 87%. On the basis of the 3158 predictive values from 21 articles, the NEF was shown to achieve the highest diagnostic rate of 70.1% when the threshold was set at 28.7, with a sensitivity of 63.38% and a specificity of 66.88%. On the basis of 3408 predictive values from 23 articles, the RSS was shown to achieve the highest diagnostic rate of 75.36% when the threshold was set at 8.05, with a sensitivity of 63.7% and a specificity of 73.2%.
conclusionThe study revealed that the D score had relatively high diagnostic power, while, the NEF and RSS had moderate overall diagnostic capacities at optimal cut-off points. However, reliability and generalizability of these result were comprised by using aggregated data for analysis in this study, and adoption of these result in clinical decision-making process should be cautious.
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.