Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41936630›Full record

ReviewBJPsych open2026

Attentional bias in paranoia: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Laura Eid, Chloe Hampshire, George Vamvakas, Pamela Jacobsen, Daniel Stahl, Jenny Yiend

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BJPsych open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Laura EidDepartment of Psychosis Studies, https://ror.org/0220mzb33Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.
Chloe HampshireBath Centre for Mindfulness and Compassion, Addiction and Mental Health Group, Department of Psychology, University of Bath, UK.
George VamvakasDepartment of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.
Pamela JacobsenBath Centre for Mindfulness and Compassion, Addiction and Mental Health Group, Department of Psychology, University of Bath, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8847-7775
Daniel StahlDepartment of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.
Jenny YiendDepartment of Psychosis Studies, https://ror.org/0220mzb33Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1967-6292

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundParanoia is a transdiagnostic symptom and is associated with cognitive and social impairments. Attentional bias toward threat is thought to maintain paranoia.

aimsDespite many studies, attentional biases in paranoia have not been systematically summarised, which was the aim of the current work.

methodWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, identifying 10 964 studies, of which 35 met inclusion criteria for review and 15 for meta-analysis.

resultsFindings showed a significant negative attentional bias (average standardised effect size 0.26; 95% CI 0.01-0.52;

conclusionsSummarising this literature provides a rationale for existing and new interventions for paranoia that target biased attentional mechanisms.

Indexed as

attention biascognitionmeta-analysisparanoiaPsychosissystematic reviewthreat

Identifiers

PMID41936630
PMCPMC13107294

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.