Evidence mapPaperPMID 40415540Full record

SynthesisEuropean psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists2025

Metacognitive training (MCT) for psychosis: a systematic review and grade recommendations.

Adrien Goncalves, Susana Ochoa, Steffen Moritz, Łukasz Gawęda, Alvaro Cavieres, Caroline König, Rabea Fischer, Antonia Meinhart, Maria Lamarca, Rosa Ayesa-Arriola and 5 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

15 authors.

Adrien Goncalveshttps://ror.org/05dd6kb95University of Strasbourg, Inserm U1329, STEP lab, Strasbourg, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-4834-3043
Susana Ochoahttps://ror.org/02f3ts956Parc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu, IRSJD, Sant Boi de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6792-1080
Steffen MoritzDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, https://ror.org/01zgy1s35University Medical Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Łukasz GawędaExperimental Psychopathology Lab, Institute of Psychology, https://ror.org/01dr6c206Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6578-1846
Alvaro CavieresDepartamento de Psiquiatría, Escuela de Medicina, Facultad de Medicina, https://ror.org/00h9jrb69Universidad de Valparaíso, Valparaíso, Chile.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6016-0733
Caroline KönigSoft Computing Research Group at Intelligent Data Science and Artificial Intelligence Research Center, https://ror.org/03mb6wj31Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7543-8686
Rabea FischerDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, https://ror.org/01zgy1s35University Medical Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3078-7134
Antonia MeinhartDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, https://ror.org/01zgy1s35University Medical Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-9619-7940
Maria Lamarcahttps://ror.org/02f3ts956Parc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu, IRSJD, Sant Boi de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-6426-560X
Rosa Ayesa-ArriolaUnidad de Investigación en Psiquiatría (IDIVAL), https://ror.org/01w4yqf75Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, España.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0570-5352
Ryan BalzanPsychology Clinic, Flinders Institute for Mental Health and Wellbeing, https://ror.org/01kpzv902Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2007-4317
Kerem BögeDepartment of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, Campus Benjamin Franklin, https://ror.org/001w7jn25Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8263-4936
Tania LecomtePsychology department, https://ror.org/0161xgx34University of Montréal, CRIUSMM, CRIPCAS, Montreal, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0340-3759
Stéphane RaffardEpsylon Laboratory, EA 4556, University of Montpellier 3, Montpellier, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5563-0323
Fabrice Bernahttps://ror.org/05dd6kb95University of Strasbourg, Inserm U1329, STEP lab, Strasbourg, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6118-0629

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent meta-analyses support the inclusion of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in schizophrenia treatment. Metacognitive Training (MCT) for psychosis is a psychoeducational program derived from CBT, with most meta-analyses showing favorable results. Although meta-analyses are commonly used in clinical practice to guide evidence-based decision-making, the grading system provides complementary results by offering a structured approach for assessing the strength and reliability of evidence and deriving grades of recommendations accordingly.

methodsOur research applies the guidelines from the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) to propose grades of recommendation for MCT for psychosis, analyzing 38 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (

resultsOur findings are primarily based on the risks of bias attributed to RCTs (11 high, 19 moderate, 6 low) and, when necessary, on the overall confidence attributed to meta-analyses (3 low, 7 critically low). According to the WFSBP guidelines, strong recommendations should be made for using MCT for psychosis to improve post-treatment positive symptoms, delusions, and total psychotic symptoms (WFSBP-grade 1). Limited recommendations (WFSBP-grade 2) could be made for using MCT to improve post-treatment visuospatial abilities and to maintain benefits over time in psychopathology, functioning, self-esteem, episodic memory, and attention.

conclusionsMCT for psychosis is an evidence-based program, especially for positive symptoms, with long-lasting clinical benefits. These recommendations should be interpreted with caution given potential residual biases and heterogeneity among studies.

Indexed as

Cognitive Behavioral TherapyMetacognitionPractice Guidelines as TopicPsychotic DisordersSchizophreniaHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicgrade recommendationMCTmetacognitive trainingpsychosisschizophreniasystematic review

Identifiers

PMID40415540
PMCPMC12260728

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.