Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39228676›Full record

ArticleSchizophrenia bulletin open2024

Biomarkers for Psychosis: Are We There Yet? Umbrella Review of 1478 Biomarkers.

Paola Fuentes-Claramonte, Andrés Estradé, Aleix Solanes, Valentina Ramella-Cravaro, Maria Angeles Garcia-Leon, Javier de Diego-Adeliño, Conrad Molins, Eric Fung, Marc Valentí, Gerard Anmella and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Schizophrenia bulletin open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Biomarkers in schizophrenia - past, present and future.Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologie
    Review
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

15 authors.

Paola Fuentes-ClaramonteFIDMAG Germanes Hospitalàries Research Foundation, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1428-7976
Andrés EstradéDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Early Psychosis: Interventions and Clinical-detection (EPIC) Lab, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6871-5932
Aleix SolanesInstitut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), University of Barcelona (UB), Barcelona, Spain.
Valentina Ramella-CravaroDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Early Psychosis: Interventions and Clinical-detection (EPIC) Lab, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Maria Angeles Garcia-LeonFIDMAG Germanes Hospitalàries Research Foundation, Barcelona, Spain.
Javier de Diego-AdeliñoBiomedical Research Networking Centre Consortium on Mental Health (CIBERSAM), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Barcelona, Spain.
Conrad MolinsPsychiatric Service, Hospital Universitari Santa Maria, Lleida, Catalonia, Spain.
Eric FungFIDMAG Germanes Hospitalàries Research Foundation, Barcelona, Spain.
Marc ValentíBiomedical Research Networking Centre Consortium on Mental Health (CIBERSAM), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Barcelona, Spain.
Gerard AnmellaBiomedical Research Networking Centre Consortium on Mental Health (CIBERSAM), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Barcelona, Spain.
Edith Pomarol-ClotetFIDMAG Germanes Hospitalàries Research Foundation, Barcelona, Spain.
Dominic OliverDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Early Psychosis: Interventions and Clinical-detection (EPIC) Lab, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8920-3407
Eduard VietaBiomedical Research Networking Centre Consortium on Mental Health (CIBERSAM), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0548-0053
Joaquim RaduaBiomedical Research Networking Centre Consortium on Mental Health (CIBERSAM), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Barcelona, Spain.
Paolo Fusar-PoliDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Early Psychosis: Interventions and Clinical-detection (EPIC) Lab, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Hypothesis: This umbrella review aims to comprehensively synthesize the evidence of association between peripheral, electrophysiological, neuroimaging, neuropathological, and other biomarkers and diagnosis of psychotic disorders. Study Design: We selected systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies on diagnostic biomarkers for psychotic disorders, published until February 1, 2018. Data extraction was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Evidence of association between biomarkers and psychotic disorders was classified as convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, or non-significant, using a standardized classification. Quality analyses used the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Study Results: The umbrella review included 110 meta-analyses or systematic reviews corresponding to 3892 individual studies, 1478 biomarkers, and 392 210 participants. No factor showed a convincing level of evidence. Highly suggestive evidence was observed for transglutaminase autoantibodies levels (odds ratio [OR] = 7.32; 95% CI: 3.36, 15.94), mismatch negativity in auditory event-related potentials (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.5, 0.96), P300 component latency (SMD = -0.6; 95% CI: -0.83, -0.38), ventricle-brain ratio (SMD = 0.61; 95% CI: 0.5, 0.71), and minor physical anomalies (SMD = 0.99; 95% CI: 0.64, 1.34). Suggestive evidence was observed for folate, malondialdehyde, brain-derived neurotrophic factor, homocysteine, P50 sensory gating (P50 S2/S1 ratio), frontal Conclusions: While several biomarkers present highly suggestive or suggestive evidence of association with psychotic disorders, methodological biases, and underpowered studies call for future higher-quality research.

Indexed as

electrophysiological biomarkersneuroimaging biomarkersneuropathological biomarkersperipheral biomarkerspsychotic disordersschizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID39228676
PMCPMC11369642

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.