scholarly journals Negative Symptoms and Functioning in Youth at Risk of Psychosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 341-355
Author(s):  
Daniel J. Devoe ◽  
Amy Braun ◽  
Thomas Seredynski ◽  
Jean Addington
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Negative Symptoms ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Youth At Risk

scholarly journals Attenuated psychotic symptom interventions in youth at risk of psychosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel J. Devoe ◽  
Megan S. Farris ◽  
Parker Townes ◽  
Jean Addington
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Psychotic Symptom ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Youth At Risk

Interventions and social functioning in youth at risk of psychosis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel J. Devoe ◽  
Megan S. Farris ◽  
Parker Townes ◽  
Jean Addington
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Social Functioning ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Youth At Risk

scholarly journals Negative Symptom Interventions in Youth at Risk of Psychosis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 807-823 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel J Devoe ◽  
Aaron Peterson ◽  
Jean Addington
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Negative Symptom ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Youth At Risk

Statin use for the prevention of seizure and epilepsy in the patients at risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies

2021 ◽  
pp. 106652
Author(s):  
Yu Guo ◽  
Ling-Hong Zhu ◽  
Kai Zhao ◽  
Xin-Mei Guo ◽  
Ming-Fei Yang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Patients At Risk ◽  
Statin Use

scholarly journals Toxoplasma gondii Infection and Clinical Characteristics of Patients With Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Arjen L Sutterland ◽  
David A Mounir ◽  
Juul J Ribbens ◽  
Bouke Kuiper ◽  
Tom van Gool ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Toxoplasma Gondii ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Negative Symptoms ◽  
Age Of Onset ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effects Models ◽  
Duration Of Illness ◽  
Toxoplasma Gondii Infection

Abstract Schizophrenia is associated with an increased prevalence of IgG antibodies against Toxoplasma gondii (T. gondii seropositivity), whereby the infection seems to precede the disorder. However, it remains unclear whether a T. gondii infection affects clinical characteristics of schizophrenia. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following PRISMA guidelines examining the association between T. gondii seropositivity and severity of total, positive, or negative symptoms or age of onset in schizophrenia. PubMed, Embase, and PsycInfo were systematically searched up to June 23, 2019 (PROSPERO #CRD42018087766). Random-effects models were used for analysis. Furthermore, the influence of potential moderators was analyzed. Indications for publication bias were examined. From a total of 934 reports, 13 studies were included. No overall effect on severity of total, positive, or negative symptoms was found. However, in patients with a shorter duration of illness T. gondii seropositivity was associated with more severe positive symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.32; P < .001). Similar but smaller effects were seen for total symptoms, while it was absent for negative symptoms. Additionally, a significantly higher age of onset was found in those with T. gondii seropositivity (1.8 y, P = .015), although this last finding was probably influenced by publication bias and study quality. Taken together, these findings indicate that T. gondii infection has a modest effect on the severity of positive and total symptoms in schizophrenia among those in the early stages of the disorder. This supports the hypothesis that T. gondii infection is causally related to schizophrenia, although more research remains necessary.

scholarly journals Psychological and psychosocial interventions for negative symptoms in psychosis: Systematic review and meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 210 (5) ◽  
pp. 324-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danyael Lutgens ◽  
Genevieve Gariepy ◽  
Ashok Malla
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Negative Symptoms ◽  
Psychotic Disorders ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Psychosocial Interventions ◽  
Detailed Examination ◽  
Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Integrated Treatment ◽  
Treatment As Usual

BackgroundNegative symptoms observed in patients with psychotic disorders undermine quality of life and functioning. Antipsychotic medications have a limited impact. Psychological and psychosocial interventions, with medication, are recommended. However, evidence for the effectiveness of specific non-biological interventions warrants detailed examination.AimsTo conduct a meta-analytic and systematic review of the literature on the effectiveness of non-biological treatments for negative symptoms in psychotic disorders.MethodWe searched for randomised controlled studies of psychological and psychosocial interventions in psychotic disorders that reported outcome on negative symptoms. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) in values of negative symptoms at the end of treatment were calculated across study domains as the main outcome measure.ResultsA total of 95 studies met our criteria and 72 had complete quantitative data. Compared with treatment as usual cognitive–behavioural therapy (pooled SMD −0.34, 95% CI −0.55 to −0.12), skills-based training (pooled SMD −0.44, 95% CI −0.77 to −0.10), exercise (pooled SMD −0.36, 95% CI −0.71 to −0.01), and music treatments (pooled SMD −0.58, 95% CI −0.82 to −0.33) provide significant benefit. Integrated treatment models are effective for early psychosis (SMD −0.38, 95% CI −0.53 to −0.22) as long as the patients remain in treatment. Overall quality of evidence was moderate with a high level of heterogeneity.ConclusionsSpecific psychological and psychosocial interventions have utility in ameliorating negative symptoms in psychosis and should be included in the treatment of negative symptoms. However, more effective treatments for negative symptoms need to be developed.

Prevalence of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Injuries among At-Risk Physicians: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 225 (4) ◽  
pp. e158
Author(s):  
Sherise Epstein ◽  
Bao Ngoc N. Tran ◽  
Qing Z. Ruan ◽  
Dhruv Singhal ◽  
Bernard T. Lee
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Musculoskeletal Injuries ◽  
Work Related

Systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis of the efficacy, safety, and biological effects of psychostimulants and atomoxetine in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder

CNS Spectrums ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 479-495 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Solmi ◽  
Michele Fornaro ◽  
Kuniyoshi Toyoshima ◽  
Andrè F. Carvalho ◽  
Cristiano A. Köhler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Executive Functions ◽  
Negative Symptoms ◽  
Biological Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cortical Activation ◽  
Therapeutic Effects ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Relapse Prediction

ObjectiveOur aim was to summarize the efficacy and safety of atomoxetine, amphetamines, and methylphenidate in schizophrenia.MethodsWe undertook a systematic review, searching PubMed/Scopus/Clinicaltrials.gov for double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies of psychostimulants or atomoxetine in schizophrenia published up to 1 January 2017. A meta-analysis of outcomes reported in two or more studies is presented.ResultsWe included 22 studies investigating therapeutic effects of stimulants (k=14) or measuring symptomatic worsening/relapse prediction after stimulant challenge (k=6). Six studies of these two groups plus one additional study investigated biological effects of psychostimulants or atomoxetine. No effect resulted from interventional studies on weight loss (k=1), smoking cessation (k=1), and positive symptoms (k=12), and no improvement was reported with atomoxetine (k=3) for negative symptoms, with equivocal findings for negative (k=6) and mood symptoms (k=2) with amphetamines. Attention, processing speed, working memory, problem solving, and executive functions, among others, showed from no to some improvement with atomoxetine (k=3) or amphetamines (k=6). Meta-analysis did not confirm any effect of stimulants in any symptom domain, including negative symptoms, apart from atomoxetine improving problem solving (k=2, standardized mean difference (SMD)=0.73, 95% CI=0.10–1.36,p=0.02, I2=0%), and trending toward significant improvement in executive functions with amphetamines (k=2, SMD=0.80, 95% CI=−1.68 to +0.08,p=0.08, I2=66%). In challenge studies, amphetamines (k=1) did not worsen symptoms, and methylphenidate (k=5) consistently worsened or predicted relapse. Biological effects of atomoxetine (k=1) and amphetamines (k=1) were cortical activation, without change in β-endorphin (k=1), improved response to antipsychotics after amphetamine challenge (k=2), and an increase of growth hormone–mediated psychosis with methylphenidate (k=2). No major side effects were reported (k=6).ConclusionsNo efficacy for stimulants or atomoxetine on negative symptoms is proven. Atomoxetine or amphetamines may improve cognitive symptoms, while methylphenidate should be avoided in patients with schizophrenia. Insufficient evidence is available to draw firm conclusions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document