SynthesisPsychological medicine2025
Sensitivity of the clinical high-risk and familial high-risk approaches for psychotic disorders - a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Psychological medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A meta-analysis comparing cognitive function between individuals at clinical high-risk for psychosis and individuals at family high-risk for psychosis.BMC psychiatry · 2025Pooled it
- Family-Level Brain Pattern Similarities and Their Clinical Significance in Young Offspring of Individuals With Psychotic Disorders.Biological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPsychosis prediction has been a key focus of psychiatry research for over 20 years. The two dominant approaches to identifying psychosis risk have been the clinical high-risk (CHR) and the familial high-risk (FHR) approaches. To date, the real-world sensitivity of these approaches - that is, the proportion of all future psychotic disorders in the population that they identify - has not been systematically reviewed.
methodsWe systematically reviewed and meta-analysed studies in MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, and Web of Science (from inception until September 2024) that reported data on the sensitivity of CHR and FHR approaches - i.e., individuals with a psychosis diagnosis preceded by a CHR diagnosis or a history of parental psychosis (PROSPERO: CRD42024542268).
resultsWe identified four CHR studies and four FHR studies reporting relevant data. The pooled estimate of the sensitivity of the CHR approach was 6.7% (95% CI: 1.5-15.0%) and of the FHR approach was 6.5% (95% CI: 4.4-8.9%). There was a high level of heterogeneity between studies. Most FHR studies had a low risk of bias, but most CHR studies had a high risk of bias.
conclusionPooled data suggest that CHR and FHR approaches, each, capture only about 6-7% of future psychotic disorders. These findings demonstrate the need for additional approaches to identify risk for psychosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.