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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Early intervention in psychiatry 2018-02, Vol.12 (1), p.3-14
Hauptverfasser: Savill, Mark, D'Ambrosio, Jennifer, Cannon, Tyrone D., Loewy, Rachel L.
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 &amp; Sons Australia, Ltd</rights><rights>2017 John Wiley &amp; Sons Australia, Ltd.</rights><rights>2018 John Wiley &amp; 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 &amp; 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