Evidence mapPaperPMID 39953286Full record

SynthesisMolecular psychiatry2025

Preventing psychosis in people at clinical high risk: an updated meta-analysis by the World Psychiatric Association Preventive Psychiatry section.

Amedeo Minichino, Cathy Davies, Olga Karpenko, Nikos Christodoulou, Rodrigo Ramalho, Sunil Nandha, Stefano Damiani, Umberto Provenzani, Cecilia Maria Esposito, Martina Maria Mensi and 4 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Molecular psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Psychiatric diagnosis on the edge: is there evidence of benefit?European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. 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

14 authors.

Amedeo MinichinoDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6309-6324
Cathy DaviesEPIC Lab, Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3011-8643
Olga KarpenkoMental-health Clinic No. 1 named after N.A. Alexeev, Moscow, Russia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0958-0596
Nikos ChristodoulouDepartment of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Thessaly, Larisa, Greece.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6401-0828
Rodrigo RamalhoDepartment of Social and Community Health, School of Population Health, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Sunil NandhaOutreach And Support in South London (OASIS) Service, South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Stefano DamianiDipartimento di Scienze del Sistema Nervoso e del Comportamento, Università di Pavia, Pavia, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5235-0788
Umberto ProvenzaniDipartimento di Scienze del Sistema Nervoso e del Comportamento, Università di Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Cecilia Maria EspositoDipartimento di Scienze del Sistema Nervoso e del Comportamento, Università di Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Martina Maria MensiDipartimento di Scienze del Sistema Nervoso e del Comportamento, Università di Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Renato BorgattiDipartimento di Scienze del Sistema Nervoso e del Comportamento, Università di Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Alberto StefanaDipartimento di Scienze del Sistema Nervoso e del Comportamento, Università di Pavia, Pavia, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4807-7184
Philip McGuireDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Paolo Fusar-PoliEPIC Lab, Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK. paolo.fusar-poli@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3582-6788

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recently published large-scale randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have questioned the efficacy of preventive interventions in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to include this new evidence and provide future directions for the field. We followed the PRISMA guidelines and a pre-registered protocol, with a literature search conducted from inception to November 2023. We included RCTs that collected data on psychosis transition (the primary outcome) in CHR-P. Secondary outcomes were symptoms severity and functioning. Investigated time points were 6,12,24,36, and +36 months. We used odd ratios (ORs) and standardised mean differences (SMD) as summary outcomes. Heterogeneity was estimated with the Higgins I

Indexed as

Psychotic DisordersAntipsychotic AgentsCognitive Behavioral TherapyHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAntipsychotic Agents

Identifiers

PMID39953286
PMCPMC12092282

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.