Psychosis risk screening in different populations using the Prodromal Questionnaire: A systematic review
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 diffe...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Early intervention in psychiatry 2018-02, Vol.12 (1), p.3-14 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 14 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 3 |
container_title | Early intervention in psychiatry |
container_volume | 12 |
creator | Savill, Mark D'Ambrosio, Jennifer Cannon, Tyrone D. Loewy, Rachel L. |
description | 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 s 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. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/eip.12446 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5812357</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1991915609</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4436-52deaa7d52a9da0bcad3673e19e557d5811516c72582c8e8bb2c3c6ebe0489a43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kd1LHDEUxUNpqZ8P_gMS6Et9WJ1kJpmkDwURv0BwBX0OmcxdN3YmmebuKPvfm3V1aQvNS8I9vxzO5RBywIpjls8J-OGY8aqSn8g2qwWb1EqXnzdvJbbIDuJTUYhacvaVbHFVK85VuU3mU1y6eUSPNHn8RdElgODDI_WBtn42gwRhQYc4jJ1d-BiQjriSF3Og0xTbFHvb0bsRcKUG6xP8oKcUl7iAPv9wNMGzh5c98mVmO4T993uXPFyc359dTW5uL6_PTm8mrqpKORG8BWvrVnCrW1s0zralrEtgGoTIY8WYYNLVXCjuFKim4a50EhooKqVtVe6Sn2vfYWx6aF1On2xnhuR7m5YmWm_-VoKfm8f4bLI1L0WdDb6_G6T4e7WW6T066DobII5omOZSK1ZJltFv_6BPcUwhr5cpzTQTstCZOlpTLkXEBLNNGFaYVX8m92fe-svs4Z_pN-RHYRk4WQMvvoPl_53M-fV0bfkKO7OnVw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1991915609</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Psychosis risk screening in different populations using the Prodromal Questionnaire: A systematic review</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Savill, Mark ; D'Ambrosio, Jennifer ; Cannon, Tyrone D. ; Loewy, Rachel L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Savill, Mark ; D'Ambrosio, Jennifer ; Cannon, Tyrone D. ; Loewy, Rachel L.</creatorcontrib><description>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 s 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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1751-7885</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1751-7893</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/eip.12446</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28782283</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Melbourne: Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd</publisher><subject>attenuated symptoms ; Diagnostic systems ; Evidence-based medicine ; Humans ; Populations ; Prodromal Symptoms ; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales ; Psychosis ; Psychotic Disorders - diagnosis ; Psychotic Disorders - psychology ; Risk Factors ; schizophrenia ; Screening ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Systematic review ; Thresholds ; ultra high risk</subject><ispartof>Early intervention in psychiatry, 2018-02, Vol.12 (1), p.3-14</ispartof><rights>2017 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd</rights><rights>2017 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.</rights><rights>2018 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4436-52deaa7d52a9da0bcad3673e19e557d5811516c72582c8e8bb2c3c6ebe0489a43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4436-52deaa7d52a9da0bcad3673e19e557d5811516c72582c8e8bb2c3c6ebe0489a43</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-4785-4885</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Feip.12446$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Feip.12446$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28782283$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Savill, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>D'Ambrosio, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cannon, Tyrone D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Loewy, Rachel L.</creatorcontrib><title>Psychosis risk screening in different populations using the Prodromal Questionnaire: A systematic review</title><title>Early intervention in psychiatry</title><addtitle>Early Interv Psychiatry</addtitle><description>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 s 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.</description><subject>attenuated symptoms</subject><subject>Diagnostic systems</subject><subject>Evidence-based medicine</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Populations</subject><subject>Prodromal Symptoms</subject><subject>Psychiatric Status Rating Scales</subject><subject>Psychosis</subject><subject>Psychotic Disorders - diagnosis</subject><subject>Psychotic Disorders - psychology</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>schizophrenia</subject><subject>Screening</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Thresholds</subject><subject>ultra high risk</subject><issn>1751-7885</issn><issn>1751-7893</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kd1LHDEUxUNpqZ8P_gMS6Et9WJ1kJpmkDwURv0BwBX0OmcxdN3YmmebuKPvfm3V1aQvNS8I9vxzO5RBywIpjls8J-OGY8aqSn8g2qwWb1EqXnzdvJbbIDuJTUYhacvaVbHFVK85VuU3mU1y6eUSPNHn8RdElgODDI_WBtn42gwRhQYc4jJ1d-BiQjriSF3Og0xTbFHvb0bsRcKUG6xP8oKcUl7iAPv9wNMGzh5c98mVmO4T993uXPFyc359dTW5uL6_PTm8mrqpKORG8BWvrVnCrW1s0zralrEtgGoTIY8WYYNLVXCjuFKim4a50EhooKqVtVe6Sn2vfYWx6aF1On2xnhuR7m5YmWm_-VoKfm8f4bLI1L0WdDb6_G6T4e7WW6T066DobII5omOZSK1ZJltFv_6BPcUwhr5cpzTQTstCZOlpTLkXEBLNNGFaYVX8m92fe-svs4Z_pN-RHYRk4WQMvvoPl_53M-fV0bfkKO7OnVw</recordid><startdate>201802</startdate><enddate>201802</enddate><creator>Savill, Mark</creator><creator>D'Ambrosio, Jennifer</creator><creator>Cannon, Tyrone D.</creator><creator>Loewy, Rachel L.</creator><general>Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4785-4885</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201802</creationdate><title>Psychosis risk screening in different populations using the Prodromal Questionnaire: A systematic review</title><author>Savill, Mark ; D'Ambrosio, Jennifer ; Cannon, Tyrone D. ; Loewy, Rachel L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4436-52deaa7d52a9da0bcad3673e19e557d5811516c72582c8e8bb2c3c6ebe0489a43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>attenuated symptoms</topic><topic>Diagnostic systems</topic><topic>Evidence-based medicine</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Populations</topic><topic>Prodromal Symptoms</topic><topic>Psychiatric Status Rating Scales</topic><topic>Psychosis</topic><topic>Psychotic Disorders - diagnosis</topic><topic>Psychotic Disorders - psychology</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>schizophrenia</topic><topic>Screening</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Thresholds</topic><topic>ultra high risk</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Savill, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>D'Ambrosio, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cannon, Tyrone D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Loewy, Rachel L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Early intervention in psychiatry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Savill, Mark</au><au>D'Ambrosio, Jennifer</au><au>Cannon, Tyrone D.</au><au>Loewy, Rachel L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Psychosis risk screening in different populations using the Prodromal Questionnaire: A systematic review</atitle><jtitle>Early intervention in psychiatry</jtitle><addtitle>Early Interv Psychiatry</addtitle><date>2018-02</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>12</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>3</spage><epage>14</epage><pages>3-14</pages><issn>1751-7885</issn><eissn>1751-7893</eissn><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 s 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.</abstract><cop>Melbourne</cop><pub>Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd</pub><pmid>28782283</pmid><doi>10.1111/eip.12446</doi><tpages>14</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4785-4885</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1751-7885 |
ispartof | Early intervention in psychiatry, 2018-02, Vol.12 (1), p.3-14 |
issn | 1751-7885 1751-7893 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5812357 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | attenuated symptoms Diagnostic systems Evidence-based medicine Humans Populations Prodromal Symptoms Psychiatric Status Rating Scales Psychosis Psychotic Disorders - diagnosis Psychotic Disorders - psychology Risk Factors schizophrenia Screening Sensitivity and Specificity Systematic review Thresholds ultra high risk |
title | Psychosis risk screening in different populations using the Prodromal Questionnaire: A systematic review |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-12T20%3A37%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Psychosis%20risk%20screening%20in%20different%20populations%20using%20the%20Prodromal%20Questionnaire:%20A%20systematic%20review&rft.jtitle=Early%20intervention%20in%20psychiatry&rft.au=Savill,%20Mark&rft.date=2018-02&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=3&rft.epage=14&rft.pages=3-14&rft.issn=1751-7885&rft.eissn=1751-7893&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/eip.12446&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1991915609%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1991915609&rft_id=info:pmid/28782283&rfr_iscdi=true |