Mark Savill1, Jennifer D'Ambrosio1, Tyrone D Cannon2, Rachel L Loewy1. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 2. Departments of Psychology and Psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
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.
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.
Authors: Ian Kelleher; Aileen Murtagh; Charlene Molloy; Sarah Roddy; Mary C Clarke; Michelle Harley; Mary Cannon Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2011-11-17 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Emily Kline; Elizabeth Thompson; Kristin Bussell; Steven C Pitts; Gloria Reeves; Jason Schiffman Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2014-01-08 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: F Schultze-Lutter; C Michel; S J Schmidt; B G Schimmelmann; N P Maric; R K R Salokangas; A Riecher-Rössler; M van der Gaag; M Nordentoft; A Raballo; A Meneghelli; M Marshall; A Morrison; S Ruhrmann; J Klosterkötter Journal: Eur Psychiatry Date: 2015-02-27 Impact factor: 5.361
Authors: Lauren E Reeves; Deidre M Anglin; Richard G Heimberg; Lauren E Gibson; Anna M Fineberg; Seth D Maxwell; Connor M Kerns; Lauren M Ellman Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2014-04-05 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Eduardo Fonseca-Pedrero; Felix Inchausti; Alicia Pérez-Albéniz; Javier Ortuño-Sierra Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2018-09-10 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: David Dodell-Feder; Bridget Shovestul; Jessica Woodyatt; Victoria Popov; Laura Germine Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2019-11-05 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Zachary B Millman; Pamela J Rakhshan Rouhakhtar; Jordan E DeVylder; Melissa E Smith; Peter L Phalen; Scott W Woods; Barbara C Walsh; Brittany Parham; Gloria M Reeves; Jason Schiffman Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2019-07-16 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Nathalia Torres Jimenez; Justin W Lines; Rachel B Kueppers; Paulo Kofuji; Henry Wei; Amy Rankila; Joseph T Coyle; Robert F Miller; Linda K McLoon Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2020-02-07 Impact factor: 4.799