Jean Addington1, Jacqueline Stowkowy1, Mark Weiser2. 1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 2. Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Abstract
AIM: The purpose of this article was to review existing screening instruments that could be used to identify individuals who may be at increased risk for psychosis and to determine the suitability of these instruments. METHODS: Medline (Ovid) and PubMed were searched for peer-reviewed articles published in English, which reported performance evaluation of screening instruments for symptoms of high risk for psychosis. The articles' titles, abstracts and, when necessary, full texts were read to filter them against the selection criteria. Citations within relevant articles were hand searched for other potentially eligible studies. RESULTS: This selection strategy resulted in identifying 56 articles (including three articles available only in an abstract format) that reported performance evaluation of 17 screening instruments. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of these scales ranged from 67% to 100% and the specificity ranged from 39% to 100%. The positive predictive value was less precise with scores ranging from 24% to 100%, and the negative predictive value ranging from 58% to 100%. There were several scales that might be useful for screening for individuals who are at increased risk for developing psychosis; however, the majority of measures are underexplored with poor validation.
AIM: The purpose of this article was to review existing screening instruments that could be used to identify individuals who may be at increased risk for psychosis and to determine the suitability of these instruments. METHODS: Medline (Ovid) and PubMed were searched for peer-reviewed articles published in English, which reported performance evaluation of screening instruments for symptoms of high risk for psychosis. The articles' titles, abstracts and, when necessary, full texts were read to filter them against the selection criteria. Citations within relevant articles were hand searched for other potentially eligible studies. RESULTS: This selection strategy resulted in identifying 56 articles (including three articles available only in an abstract format) that reported performance evaluation of 17 screening instruments. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of these scales ranged from 67% to 100% and the specificity ranged from 39% to 100%. The positive predictive value was less precise with scores ranging from 24% to 100%, and the negative predictive value ranging from 58% to 100%. There were several scales that might be useful for screening for individuals who are at increased risk for developing psychosis; however, the majority of measures are underexplored with poor validation.
Authors: Eduardo Fonseca-Pedrero; Javier Ortuño-Sierra; Edurne Chocarro; Felix Inchausti; Martin Debbané; Julio Bobes Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2016-10-27 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Nicole R Karcher; Deanna M Barch; Shelli Avenevoli; Mark Savill; Rebekah S Huber; Tony J Simon; Ingrid N Leckliter; Kenneth J Sher; Rachel L Loewy Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Paolo Fusar-Poli; Christoph U Correll; Celso Arango; Michael Berk; Vikram Patel; John P A Ioannidis Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2021-06 Impact factor: 79.683
Authors: P Fusar-Poli; M Cappucciati; G Rutigliano; T Y Lee; Q Beverly; I Bonoldi; J Lelli; S J Kaar; E Gago; M Rocchetti; R Patel; V Bhavsar; S Tognin; S Badger; M Calem; K Lim; J S Kwon; J Perez; P McGuire Journal: Psychiatry J Date: 2016-05-30