Dataset Information

Psychosis risk screening in different populations using the Prodromal Questionnaire: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT: AIM:Diagnosing individuals at ultra high risk (UHR) for psychosis can improve early access to treatment, and a two-stage model utilizing self-report screening followed by a clinical interview can be accurate and efficient. However, it is currently unclear which screening cut-offs to adopt with different populations. METHODS:A systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies evaluating the Prodromal Questionnaire (PQ) as a preliminary screener for UHR and psychosis was conducted to examine screening effectiveness in different contexts. MedLine, PsycInfo, SCOPUS and ProQuest Dissertations and Abstracts databases were electronically searched, along with a review screen and citation search of key papers. Findings were summarized in a narrative synthesis. RESULTS:In total, 14 diagnostic accuracy studies and 45 studies using the PQ as a screening tool for UHR and psychosis were included. In all settings, the 3 different versions of the PQ were all found to accurately identify UHR and full psychosis. Higher cut-off points were required in non-help-seeking samples, relative to general help-seeking populations, which in turn were higher than those needed in samples highly enriched with UHR participants. CONCLUSION:The findings support the use of the PQ as a preliminary screening tool for UHR in different settings; however, higher thresholds in lower UHR-prevalence populations are necessary to minimize false positives. Including the distress criteria, rather than just number of symptoms, may improve screening effectiveness. Different thresholds may be appropriate in different contexts depending on the importance of sensitivity vs specificity. Protocol registration: CRD42016033004.

SUBMITTER: Savill M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5812357 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Psychosis risk screening in different populations using the Prodromal Questionnaire: A systematic review.

Savill Mark M D'Ambrosio Jennifer J Cannon Tyrone D TD Loewy Rachel L RL

Early intervention in psychiatry 20170806 1

<h4>Aim</h4>Diagnosing individuals at ultra high risk (UHR) for psychosis can improve early access to treatment, and a two-stage model utilizing self-report screening followed by a clinical interview can be accurate and efficient. However, it is currently unclear which screening cut-offs to adopt with different populations.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies evaluating the Prodromal Questionnaire (PQ) as a preliminary screener for UHR and psychosis was conducted to ...[more]

PMID: 28782283

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDiagnosing obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is clinically relevant because untreated OSA has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The STOP-Bang questionnaire is a validated screening tool for OSA. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness of STOP-Bang for screening patients suspected of having OSA and to predict its accuracy in determining the severity of OSA in the different populations.MethodsA search of the literature databases was performed. Inclusion criteria were: 1) Studies that used STOP-Bang questionnaire as a screening tool for OSA in adult subjects (>18 years); 2) The accuracy of the STOP-Bang questionnaire was validated by polysomnography--the gold standard for diagnosing OSA; 3) OSA was clearly defined as apnea/hypopnea index (AHI) or respiratory disturbance index (RDI) ? 5; 4) Publications in the English language. The quality of the studies were explicitly described and coded according to the Cochrane Methods group on the screening and diagnostic tests.ResultsSeventeen studies including 9,206 patients met criteria for the systematic review. In the sleep clinic population, the sensitivity was 90%, 94% and 96% to detect any OSA (AHI ? 5), moderate-to-severe OSA (AHI ?15), and severe OSA (AHI ?30) respectively. The corresponding NPV was 46%, 75% and 90%. A similar trend was found in the surgical population. In the sleep clinic population, the probability of severe OSA with a STOP-Bang score of 3 was 25%. With a stepwise increase of the STOP-Bang score to 4, 5, 6 and 7/8, the probability rose proportionally to 35%, 45%, 55% and 75%, respectively. In the surgical population, the probability of severe OSA with a STOP-Bang score of 3 was 15%. With a stepwise increase of the STOP-Bang score to 4, 5, 6 and 7/8, the probability increased to 25%, 35%, 45% and 65%, respectively.ConclusionThis meta-analysis confirms the high performance of the STOP-Bang questionnaire in the sleep clinic and surgical population for screening of OSA. The higher the STOP-Bang score, the greater is the probability of moderate-to-severe OSA.

Project description:ImportanceThis systematic review and meta-analysis is, to date, the first and most comprehensive to focus on the incidence of nonaffective psychoses among refugees.ObjectiveTo assess the relative risk (RR) of incidence of nonaffective psychosis in refugees compared with the RR in the native population and nonrefugee migrants.Data sourcesPubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase databases were searched for studies from January 1, 1977, to March 8, 2018, with no language restrictions (PROSPERO registration No. CRD42018106740).Study selectionStudies conducted in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Canada were selected by multiple independent reviewers. Inclusion criteria were (1) observation of refugee history in participants, (2) assessment of effect size and spread, (3) adjustment for sex, (4) definition of nonaffective psychosis according to standardized operationalized criteria, and (5) comparators were either nonrefugee migrants or the native population. Studies observing ethnic background only, with no explicit definition of refugee status, were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines were followed for extracting data and assessing data quality and validity as well as risk of bias of included studies. A random-effects model was created to pool the effect sizes of included studies.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome, formulated before data collection, was the pooled RR in refugees compared with the nonrefugee population.ResultsOf the 4358 screened articles, 9 studies (0.2%) involving 540 000 refugees in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Canada were included in the analyses. The RR for nonaffective psychoses in refugees was 1.43 (95% CI, 1.00-2.05; I2 = 96.3%) compared with nonrefugee migrants. Analyses that were restricted to studies with low risk of bias had an RR of 1.39 (95% CI, 1.23-1.58; I2 = 0.0%) for refugees compared with nonrefugee migrants, 2.41 (95% CI, 1.51-3.85; I2 = 96.3%) for refugees compared with the native population, and 1.92 (95% CI, 1.02-3.62; I2 = 97.0%) for nonrefugee migrants compared with the native group. Exclusion of studies that defined refugee status not individually but only by country of origin resulted in an RR of 2.24 (95% CI, 1.12-4.49; I2 = 96.8%) for refugees compared with nonrefugee migrants and an RR of 3.26 (95% CI, 1.87-5.70; I2 = 97.6%) for refugees compared with the native group. In general, the RR of nonaffective psychosis was increased in refugees and nonrefugee migrants compared with the native population.Conclusions and relevanceRefugee experience appeared to be an independent risk factor in developing nonaffective psychosis among refugees in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Canada. These findings suggest that applying the conclusions to non-Scandinavian countries should include a consideration of the characteristics of the native society and its specific interaction with the refugee population.

Dataset Information

Psychosis risk screening in different populations using the Prodromal Questionnaire: A systematic review.

Publications

Psychosis risk screening in different populations using the Prodromal Questionnaire: A systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets