SynthesisBMC psychiatry2026
The severity of dissociation and dissociative phenomena in non-affective psychosis: a systematic review and meta-analyses.
Synthesis in BMC psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNon-affective psychosis is associated with elevated risk of suicide, self-harm, and reduced life expectancy. Symptoms of dissociation are common in non-affective psychosis, and dissociative experiences are known to be linked to multiple markers of elevated clinical risk, including sleep disturbance and negative affect. The present review represents the first comprehensive quantification of dissociative phenomena severity across multiple instruments in non-affective psychosis.
methodsSix databases (Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) were searched from inception and systematically screened. Eligibility was established against ICD/DSM criteria or service-defined categorisation, including first-episode psychosis, brief limited intermittent psychotic symptoms, and at-risk of psychosis mental states. In total, data were extracted for 22 measures. Four random effects meta-analyses were conducted for measures with three or more independent datasets: the Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES) (k = 51; n = 3,878); the Cambridge Depersonalization Scale (CDS) (k = 6; n = 351); the Examination of Anomalous Self Experience scale, using the dichotomous scoring method (EASE-D) (k = 11; n = 340); and the Examination of Anomalous Self Experience scale, using the continuous scoring method (EASE-C) (k = 6; n = 235).
resultsDES data yielded a pooled mean of 21.28 (95% CI 19.19-23.38), consistent with moderately elevated dissociation. CDS data yielded a pooled mean of 36.38 (95% CI 26.89-45.87), also raised relative to community norms. EASE-D pooled means (M = 17.76 95% CI 15.29-20.24) and EASE-C pooled means (M = 74.86 95% CI 52.36-97.35) both indicated high and clinically relevant loads of basic self-disturbance. High heterogeneity (I
conclusionsThe present findings emphasise the importance of assessing dissociation in non-affective psychosis, and where necessary, intervening clinically. Nonetheless, the development of trauma-informed, dissociation-targeted clinical interventions is required to optimise approaches to support. Throughout the literature, there is a pressing need for more harmonised measurement efforts and further mechanistic research.
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.