-
Neuropsychology Review Jun 2024Most people with dementia experience neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS), including anxiety, depression or disinhibition. There is growing interest in the relationship... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Most people with dementia experience neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS), including anxiety, depression or disinhibition. There is growing interest in the relationship between NPS and cognitive impairment, but data is still limited. This study aimed to investigate the specific associations between NPS and cognition in people with dementia. MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO were searched for published, peer-reviewed studies of associations between at least one NPS and one cognitive ability in people with dementia. The quality of the studies was assessed with the NIH National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute's quality assessment tools. A meta-analysis was conducted using Robumeta package for R. Ninety studies were included. We found significant associations between NPS, global cognition and cognitive domains, e.g. apathy was associated with global cognitive and memory impairment; dysphoria was associated with worse attention; delusions with executive dysfunction. Increased NPS in people with dementia are associated with worse cognitive performance. There were few studies looking at associations between some neuropsychiatric clusters and cognitive abilities, and there was little research on causal relationships. Our review was limited by the inclusion of studies that reported associations in specific formats, and most included people with a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, given the large number of studies, this is unlikely to have biased results. More research is needed that includes diverse people with different dementia syndromes. Registration: PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020165565.
Topics: Humans; Dementia; Cognitive Dysfunction; Cognition; Alzheimer Disease
PubMed: 37477839
DOI: 10.1007/s11065-023-09608-0 -
Psychological Medicine Oct 2022Psychotic symptoms, that we defined as delusions or hallucinations, are common in bipolar disorders (BD). This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to synthesise the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Psychotic symptoms, that we defined as delusions or hallucinations, are common in bipolar disorders (BD). This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to synthesise the literature on both lifetime and point prevalence rates of psychotic symptoms across different BD subtypes, including both BD type I (BDI) and BD type II (BDII). We performed a systematic search of Medline, PsycINFO, Embase and Cochrane Library until 5 August 2021. Fifty-four studies ( = 23 461) of adults with BD met the predefined inclusion criteria for evaluating lifetime prevalence, and 24 studies ( = 6480) for evaluating point prevalence. Quality assessment and assessment of publication bias were performed. Prevalence rates were calculated using random effects meta-analysis, here expressed as percentages with a 95% confidence interval (CI). In studies of at least moderate quality, the pooled lifetime prevalence of psychotic symptoms in BDI was 63% (95% CI 57.5-68) and 22% (95% CI 14-33) in BDII. For BDI inpatients, the pooled lifetime prevalence was 71% (95% CI 61-79). There were no studies of community samples or inpatient BDII. The pooled point prevalence of psychotic symptoms in BDI was 54% (95 CI 41-67). The point prevalence was 57% (95% CI 47-66) in manic episodes and 13% (95% CI 7-23.5) in depressive episodes. There were not enough studies in BDII, BDI depression, mixed episodes and outpatient BDI. The pooled prevalence of psychotic symptoms in BDI may be higher than previously reported. More studies are needed for depressive and mixed episodes and community samples.Prospero registration number: CRD 42017052706.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Bipolar Disorder; Prevalence; Psychotic Disorders; Hallucinations; Mania
PubMed: 36016504
DOI: 10.1017/S003329172200201X -
JAMA Psychiatry May 2022A substantial increase in the number of trials examining metacognitive training (MCT) for psychosis necessitates an updated examination of the outcomes associated with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
A substantial increase in the number of trials examining metacognitive training (MCT) for psychosis necessitates an updated examination of the outcomes associated with MCT.
OBJECTIVES
To review the immediate and sustained associations of MCT with proximal (directly targeted) and distal (indirectly influenced) outcomes and assess treatment- and participant-related moderators to identify the potential factors associated with the expected heterogeneity of effect sizes.
DATA SOURCES
Eleven electronic databases were searched from 2007 to June 3, 2021 (alert until September 10, 2021). Reference lists of earlier meta-analyses and included reports were screened.
STUDY SELECTION
Reports examined MCT and included participants with schizophrenia spectrum and related psychotic disorders (1045 reports identified; 281 assessed). There were no age, sex, gender, race and ethnicity, language, or study design restrictions. Two reviewers performed the selection of studies to be analyzed.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline was followed. Data were extracted by 3 reviewers and pooled using random effects models. Hedges g effect sizes were computed. The Mixed-Methods Appraisal tool was used to assess study quality.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Proximal outcomes were global positive symptoms, delusions, hallucinations, and cognitive biases. Distal outcomes were self-esteem, negative symptoms, quality of life, well-being, and functioning. Immediate and sustained outcomes were examined. Meta-regressions, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses assessed moderators.
RESULTS
This systematic review and meta-analysis included 43 studies (46 reports). Forty reports were synthesized in meta-analysis (N=1816 participants) and 6 reports were included in narrative review. In the studies examined, MCT was associated with positive symptoms (g = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.34-0.67), delusions (g = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.45-0.93), hallucinations (g = 0.26; 95% CI, 0.11-0.40), cognitive biases (g = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.03-0.29), self-esteem (g = 0.17; 95% CI, 0.03-0.31), negative symptoms (g = 0.23; 95% CI, 0.10-0.37), and functioning (g = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.12-0.69). These associations were maintained up to 1 year. The quality of life effect size was nonsignificant (g = 0.20; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.47); only 1 study assessed well-being. Publication year was associated with moderated hallucinations (β = 0.04; 95% CI, 0.00-0.07). Overall, narrative review results corroborated meta-analytic findings.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this meta-analysis, MCT for psychosis was associated with benefits up to 1 year postintervention in several treatment contexts. These findings suggest that MCT may merit integration in treatment guidelines for schizophrenia.
Topics: Hallucinations; Humans; Metacognition; Psychotic Disorders; Quality of Life; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 35320347
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.0277 -
Schizophrenia Research Jul 2020Sleep disturbance is a common clinical issue for patients with psychosis. It has been identified as a putative causal factor in the onset and persistence of psychotic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Sleep disturbance is a common clinical issue for patients with psychosis. It has been identified as a putative causal factor in the onset and persistence of psychotic experiences (paranoia and hallucinations). Hence sleep disruption may be a potential treatment target to prevent the onset of psychosis and reduce persistent psychotic experiences. The aim of this review is to describe developments in understanding the nature, causal role, and treatment of sleep disruption in psychosis.
METHOD
A systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies, published in the last five years, investigating subjective sleep disruption and psychotic experiences.
RESULTS
Fifty-eight papers were identified: 37 clinical and 21 non-clinical studies. The studies were correlational (n = 38; 20 clinical, 18 non-clinical), treatment (n = 7; 1 non-clinical), qualitative accounts (n = 6 clinical), prevalence estimates (n = 5 clinical), and experimental tests (n = 2 non-clinical). Insomnia (50%) and nightmare disorder (48%) are the most prevalent sleep problems found in patients. Sleep disruption predicts the onset and persistence of psychotic experiences such as paranoia and hallucinations, with negative affect identified as a partial mediator of this relationship. Patients recognise the detrimental effects of disrupted sleep and are keen for treatment. All psychological intervention studies reported large effect size improvements in sleep and there may be modest resultant improvements in psychotic experiences.
CONCLUSIONS
Sleep disruption is a treatable clinical problem in patients with psychosis. It is important to treat in its own right but may also lessen psychotic experiences. Research is required on how this knowledge can be implemented in clinical services.
Topics: Delusions; Hallucinations; Humans; Paranoid Disorders; Psychotic Disorders; Schizophrenia; Sleep
PubMed: 31831262
DOI: 10.1016/j.schres.2019.11.014 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2019Primary delusional infestation (DI) is a primary psychiatric disorder characterised by delusions and abnormal tactile sensations. The pathophysiology is undecided and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Primary delusional infestation (DI) is a primary psychiatric disorder characterised by delusions and abnormal tactile sensations. The pathophysiology is undecided and treatment includes both pharmacological and non-pharmacological options. There is currently no Cochrane Review of the treatments used. Primary DI is a diagnosis often encountered by both dermatologists and psychiatrists, with a large associated disease burden.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of different treatments in primary delusional infestation (DI).
SEARCH METHODS
On 24 December 2014 and 19 March 2019, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials including registries of clinical trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials involving the treatment of adults with primary DI.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened and assessed studies for inclusion using pre-specified inclusion criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
We did not identify any studies for inclusion.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Currently there is no evidence from RCTs available to compare treatment of primary DI with placebo. We cannot, therefore, make any conclusions regarding the effects of treatments (pharmacological or non-pharmacological) for primary DI. This lack of evidence for treatment of primary DI has implications for research and practice. Robust randomised trials are indicated.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Humans; Psychotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia, Paranoid; Self Concept
PubMed: 31821546
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011326.pub2 -
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and... Aug 2018A preregistered systematic review of poststroke psychosis examining clinical characteristics, prevalence, diagnostic procedures, lesion location, treatments, risk...
A preregistered systematic review of poststroke psychosis examining clinical characteristics, prevalence, diagnostic procedures, lesion location, treatments, risk factors and outcome. Neuropsychiatric outcomes following stroke are common and severely impact quality of life. No previous reviews have focused on poststroke psychosis despite clear clinical need. CINAHL, MEDLINE and PsychINFO were searched for studies on poststroke psychosis published between 1975 and 2016. Reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and rated study quality. Out of 2442 references, 76 met inclusion criteria. Average age for poststroke psychosis was 66.6 years with slightly more males than females affected. Delayed onset was common. Neurological presentation was typical for stroke, but a significant minority had otherwise 'silent strokes'. The most common psychosis was delusional disorder, followed by schizophrenia-like psychosis and mood disorder with psychotic features. Estimated delusion prevalence was 4.67% (95% CI 2.30% to 7.79%) and hallucinations 5.05% (95% CI 1.84% to 9.65%). Twelve-year incidence was 6.7%. No systematic treatment studies were found. Case studies frequently report symptom remission after antipsychotics, but serious concerns about under-representation of poor outcome remain. Lesions were typically right hemisphere, particularly frontal, temporal and parietal regions, and the right caudate nucleus. In general, poststroke psychosis was associated with poor functional outcomes and high mortality. Poor methodological quality of studies was a significant limitation. Psychosis considerably adds to illness burden of stroke. Delayed onset suggests a window for early intervention. Studies on the safety and efficacy of antipsychotics in this population are urgently needed.
Topics: Aged; Delusions; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Psychotic Disorders; Stroke
PubMed: 29332009
DOI: 10.1136/jnnp-2017-317327 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2018Many individuals who have a diagnosis of schizophrenia experience a range of distressing and debilitating symptoms. These can include positive symptoms (such as... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Many individuals who have a diagnosis of schizophrenia experience a range of distressing and debilitating symptoms. These can include positive symptoms (such as delusions, hallucinations, disorganised speech), cognitive symptoms (such as trouble focusing or paying attention or using information to make decisions), and negative symptoms (such as diminished emotional expression, avolition, alogia, and anhedonia). Antipsychotic drugs are often only partially effective, particularly in treating negative symptoms, indicating the need for additional treatment. Mirtazapine is an antidepressant drug that when taken in addition to an antipsychotic may offer some benefit for negative symptoms.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically assess the effects of mirtazapine as adjunct treatment for people with schizophrenia.
SEARCH METHODS
The Information Specialist of Cochrane Schizophrenia searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (including registries of clinical trials) up to May 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) with useable data focusing on mirtazapine adjunct for people with schizophrenia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. For included studies we assessed risk of bias and created 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine RCTs with a total of 310 participants. All studies compared mirtazapine adjunct with placebo adjunct and were of short-term duration. We considered five studies to have a high risk of bias for either incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, or other bias.Our main outcomes of interest were clinically important change in mental state (negative and positive symptoms), leaving the study early for any reason, clinically important change in global state, clinically important change in quality of life, number of days in hospital and incidence of serious adverse events.One trial defined a reduction in the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS) overall score from baseline of at least 20% as no important response for negative symptoms. There was no evidence of a clear difference between the two treatments with similar numbers of participants from each group showing no important response to treatment (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.14, 1 RCT, n = 20, very low-quality evidence).Clinically important change in positive symptoms was not reported, however, clinically important change in overall mental state was reported by two trials and data for this outcome showed a favourable effect for mirtazapine (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.92; I = 75%, 2 RCTs, n = 77, very low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a clear difference for numbers of participants leaving the study early (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.66, 9 RCTs, n = 310, moderate-quality evidence), and no evidence of a clear difference in global state Clinical Global Impressions Scale (CGI) severity scores (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.48, 1 RCT, n = 39, very low-quality evidence). A favourable effect for mirtazapine adjunct was found for the outcome clinically important change in akathisia (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.52, 2 RCTs, n = 86, low-quality evidence; I = 61%I). No data were reported for quality life or number of days in hospital.In addition to the main outcomes of interest, there was evidence relating to adverse events that the mirtazapine adjunct groups were associated with an increased risk of weight gain (RR 3.19, 95% CI 1.17 to 8.65, 4 RCTs, n = 127) and sedation/drowsiness (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.68, 7 RCTs, n = 223).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The available evidence is primarily of very low quality and indicates that mirtazapine adjunct is not clearly associated with an effect for negative symptoms, but there is some indication of a positive effect on overall mental state and akathisia. No effect was found for global state or leaving the study early and data were not available for quality of life or service use. Due to limitations of the quality and applicability of the evidence it is not possible to make any firm conclusions, the role of mirtazapine adjunct in routine clinical practice remains unclear. This underscores the need for new high-quality evidence to further evaluate mirtazapine adjunct for schizophrenia.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Antipsychotic Agents; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Humans; Mianserin; Mirtazapine; Patient Dropouts; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia; Schizophrenic Psychology; Weight Gain
PubMed: 29802811
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011943.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Schizophrenia and related disorders such as schizophreniform and schizoaffective disorder are serious mental illnesses characterised by profound disruptions in thinking... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Schizophrenia and related disorders such as schizophreniform and schizoaffective disorder are serious mental illnesses characterised by profound disruptions in thinking and speech, emotional processes, behaviour and sense of self. Clozapine is useful in the treatment of schizophrenia and related disorders, particularly when other antipsychotic medications have failed. It improves positive symptoms (such as delusions and hallucinations) and negative symptoms (such as withdrawal and poverty of speech). However, it is unclear what dose of clozapine is most effective with the least side effects.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and tolerability of clozapine at different doses and to identify the optimal dose of clozapine in the treatment of schizophrenia, schizophreniform and schizoaffective disorders.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (August 2011 and 8 December 2016).
SELECTION CRITERIA
All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of blinding status or language, that compared the effects of clozapine at different doses in people with schizophrenia and related disorders, diagnosed by any criteria.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently inspected citations from the searches, identified relevant abstracts, obtained full articles of relevant abstracts, and classified trials as included or excluded. We included trials that met our inclusion criteria and reported useable data. For dichotomous data, we calculated the relative risk (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) again based on a random-effects model. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified five studies that could be included. Each compared the effects of clozapine at very low dose (up to 149 mg/day), low dose (150 mg/day to 300 mg/day) and standard dose (301 mg/day to 600 mg/day). Four of the five included studies were based on a small number of participants. We rated all the evidence reported for the main outcomes of interest as low or very low quality. No data were available for the main outcomes of global state, service use or quality of life. Very low dose compared to low doseWe found no evidence of effect on mental state between low and very low doses of clozapine in terms of average Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale-Anchored (BPRS-A) endpoint score (1 RCT, n = 31, MD 3.55, 95% CI -4.50 to 11.60, very low quality evidence). One study found no difference between groups in body mass index (BMI) in the short term (1 RCT, n = 59, MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.95 to 0.75, low-quality evidence). Very low dose compared to standard doseWe found no evidence of effect on mental state between very low doses and standard doses of clozapine in terms of average BPRS-A endpoint score (1 RCT, n = 31, MD 6.67, 95% CI -2.09 to 15.43, very low quality evidence). One study found no difference between groups in BMI in the short term (1 RCT, n = 58, MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.76 to 0.96, low-quality evidence) Low dose compared to standard doseWe found no evidence of effect on mental state between low doses and standard doses of clozapine in terms of both clinician-assessed clinical improvement (2 RCTs, n = 141, RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.61, medium-quality evidence) and clinically important response as more than 30% change in BPRS score (1 RCT, n = 176, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.10, medium-quality evidence). One study found no difference between groups in BMI in the short term (1 RCT, n = 57, MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.84 to 1.24, low-quality evidence).We found some evidence of effect for other adverse effect outcomes; however, the data were again limited. Very low dose compared to low doseThere was limited evidence that serum triglycerides were lower at low-dose clozapine compared to very low dose in the short term (1 RCT, n = 59, MD 1.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.49). Low dose compared to standard doseWeight gain was lower at very low dose compared to standard dose (1 RCT, n = 27, MD -2.70, 95% CI -5.38 to -0.02). Glucose level one hour after meal was also lower at very lose dose (1 RCT, n = 58, MD -1.60, 95% CI -2.90 to -0.30). Total cholesterol levels were higher at very low compared to standard dose (1 RCT, n = 58, n = 58, MD 1.00, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.80). Low dose compared to standard doseThere was evidence of fewer adverse effects, measured as lower TESS scores, in the low-dose group in the short term (2 RCTs, n = 266, MD -3.99, 95% CI -5.75 to -2.24); and in one study there was evidence that the incidence of lethargy (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.97), hypersalivation (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.84), dizziness (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.81) and tachycardia (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.71) was less at low dose compared to standard dose.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no evidence of effect on mental state between standard, low and very low dose regimes, but we did not identify any trials on high or very high doses of clozapine. BMI measurements were similar between groups in the short term, although weight gain was less at very low dose compared to standard dose in one study. There was limited evidence that the incidence of some adverse effects was greater at standard dose compared to lower dose regimes. We found very little useful data and the evidence available is generally of low or very low quality. More studies are needed to validate our findings and report on outcomes such as relapse, remission, social functioning, service utilisation, cost-effectiveness, satisfaction with care, and quality of life. There is a particular lack of medium- or long-term outcome data, and on dose regimes above the standard rate.
Topics: Agranulocytosis; Antipsychotic Agents; Clozapine; Humans; Psychotic Disorders; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 28613395
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009555.pub2 -
Clinical Psychology Review Feb 2017Recent decades have seen a surge of research interest in the phenomenon of healthy individuals who experience auditory verbal hallucinations, yet do not exhibit distress... (Review)
Review
Recent decades have seen a surge of research interest in the phenomenon of healthy individuals who experience auditory verbal hallucinations, yet do not exhibit distress or need for care. The aims of the present systematic review are to provide a comprehensive overview of this research and examine how healthy voice-hearers may best be conceptualised in relation to the diagnostic versus 'quasi-' and 'fully-dimensional' continuum models of psychosis. A systematic literature search was conducted, resulting in a total of 398 article titles and abstracts that were scrutinised for appropriateness to the present objective. Seventy articles were identified for full-text analysis, of which 36 met criteria for inclusion. Subjective perceptual experience of voices, such as loudness or location (i.e., inside/outside head), is similar in clinical and non-clinical groups, although clinical voice-hearers have more frequent voices, more negative voice content, and an older age of onset. Groups differ significantly in beliefs about voices, control over voices, voice-related distress, and affective difficulties. Cognitive biases, reduced global functioning, and psychiatric symptoms such as delusions, appear more prevalent in healthy voice-hearers than in healthy controls, yet less than in clinical samples. Transition to mental health difficulties is increased in HVHs, yet only occurs in a minority and is predicted by previous mood problems and voice distress. Whilst healthy voice-hearers show similar brain activity during hallucinatory experiences to clinical voice-hearers, other neuroimaging measures, such as mismatch negativity, have been inconclusive. Risk factors such as familial and childhood trauma appear similar between clinical and non-clinical voice-hearers. Overall the results of the present systematic review support a continuum view rather than a diagnostic model, but cannot distinguish between 'quasi' and 'fully' dimensional models. Healthy voice-hearers may be a key resource in informing transdiagnostic approaches to research of auditory hallucinations.
Topics: Delusions; Hallucinations; Humans; Models, Psychological; Psychotic Disorders
PubMed: 27866082
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2016.10.010 -
Shanghai Archives of Psychiatry Jun 2015Metacognitive training (MCT) is a novel group psychotherapy method for schizophrenia, but there is, as yet, no conclusive evidence of its efficacy. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Metacognitive training (MCT) is a novel group psychotherapy method for schizophrenia, but there is, as yet, no conclusive evidence of its efficacy.
AIMS
Conduct a meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of MCT in schizophrenia.
METHODS
Electronic and hand searches were conducted to identify randomized controlled trials about the effects of MCT in schizophrenia that met pre-defined inclusion criteria. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was employed to assess of risk of biases, and Cochrane Review Manager version 5.3 and R version 3.1.1 were used to conduct the data synthesis.
RESULTS
Ten trials from 54 unduplicated reports were included in the review, but differences in the methods of assessing outcomes limited the number of studies that could be included in the meta-analysis. Pooling four studies that assessed the positive symptom subscale of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) at the end of the trial identified a small but statistically significant greater reduction in the MCT group than in the control group. But pooling four studies that assessed the delusion subscale of the Psychotic Symptom Rating Scales (PSYRATS) at the end of the trial found no significant difference between the groups. Results from the qualitative assessment of the other results that could not be pooled across studies were mixed, some showed a trend in favor of MCT but many found no difference between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS
The limited number of RCT trials, the variability of the method and time of the outcome evaluation, and methodological problems in the trials make it impossible to come to a conclusion about the effectiveness of MCT for schizophrenia. More randomized trials that use standardized outcome measures, that use intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses, and that follow-up participants at regular intervals after the intervention are needed to determine whether or not MCT should become a recommended adjunctive treatment for schizophrenia.
PubMed: 26300597
DOI: 10.11919/j.issn.1002-0829.215065