Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39688301›Full record

SynthesisChild and adolescent mental health2025

Review: Efficacy of preventative interventions for children and adolescents at clinical high risk of psychosis - a systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention studies.

Grace Frearson, Javier de Otazu Olivares, Ana Catalan, Claudia Aymerich, Gonzalo Salazar de Pablo

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Child and adolescent mental health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

5 authors.

Grace FrearsonDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Javier de Otazu OlivaresSchool of Medicine, Universidad Nacional Pedro Henríquez Ureña, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.
Ana CatalanEarly Psychosis: Interventions and Clinical-detection (EPIC) Lab, Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0418-7904
Claudia AymerichPsychiatry Department, Biocruces Bizkaia Health Research Institute, OSI Bilbao-Basurto, Facultad de Medicina y Odontología, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Centro de Investigación en Red de Salud Mental (CIBERSAM), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Barakaldo, Bizkaia, Spain.
Gonzalo Salazar de PabloDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6992-0767

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite evidence suggesting that age moderates the response to preventative treatment for those at clinical high risk of psychosis (CHR-P), no meta-analysis has assessed the effectiveness of preventative interventions for CHR-P children and adolescents. Our aim was to synthesise evidence assessing preventative interventions on a wide range of mental health outcomes for CHR-P children and adolescents.

methodA systematic search was conducted on Ovid MEDLINE, Pubmed, APA PsycInfo and Web of Science until June 2024 (PROSPERO: CRD42023406696). Intervention studies that had a mean participant age of under 18 years old that reported on mental health outcomes for CHR-P participants were selected. A meta-analysis was conducted for independent studies reporting the effectiveness of interventions on different outcomes (transition to psychosis, attenuated positive, negative and total prodromal psychotic symptoms, depressive symptoms and global functioning) compared to control conditions of no intervention or placebo. Evidence from other studies was also reported narratively.

resultsTwenty-four studies and 1319 CHR-P children and adolescents were included. Compared to no intervention or placebo, preventative interventions were effective for positive symptoms (SMD = 0.379, p = .022, 95% CI 0.055, 0.703), negative symptoms (SMD = 0.583, p = .004, 95% CI 0.187, 0.980), total symptoms (SMD = 0.677, p = .002, 95% CI 0.249, 1.105) and functioning (SMD = 0.944, p = .038, 95% CI 0.052, 1.836) but not reducing transition to psychosis or depressive symptoms.

conclusionsThere are disparities in the effectiveness of preventative interventions for different outcomes, with transition to psychosis not being the only relevant outcome. Differences in the efficacy of preventative interventions emerged between CHR-P children and adolescents versus adults.

Indexed as

Prodromal SymptomsPsychotic DisordersAdolescentChildHumansadolescentschildrenClinical high riskinterventionspsychosis

Identifiers

PMID39688301
PMCPMC11754713

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.