2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2021.07.593
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Psychosis Risk in Children and Adolescents With an At-Risk Mental State

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
12
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 75 publications
2
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In terms of absolute risk, 12.8% of individuals who attended CAMHS received a diagnosis of a psychotic or bipolar disorder, compared to 1.8% of the rest of the population (OR=7.9, 95% CI: 7.2-8.7). This elevated risk is similar to the level of psychosis risk associated with a formal CHR diagnosis in childhood or adolescence: in a recent systematic review of all CHR studies, we found a transition rate to psychosis of 9.5% at 1 year, 12.1% at 2 years, and 16.1% at 5 or more years 51 .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
“…In terms of absolute risk, 12.8% of individuals who attended CAMHS received a diagnosis of a psychotic or bipolar disorder, compared to 1.8% of the rest of the population (OR=7.9, 95% CI: 7.2-8.7). This elevated risk is similar to the level of psychosis risk associated with a formal CHR diagnosis in childhood or adolescence: in a recent systematic review of all CHR studies, we found a transition rate to psychosis of 9.5% at 1 year, 12.1% at 2 years, and 16.1% at 5 or more years 51 .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
“…We have read with great interest the systematic review and meta-analysis by Dr Lang and colleagues 1 in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. The authors evaluated the transition rates of individuals 18 years old at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P) after 1 year, 2 years and ≥5 years of follow-up, finding remarkably lower transition rates than those reported by previously published meta-analyses 2,3 .…”
Section: Dear Editorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite its clinical relevance and its association with poorer treatment outcomes ( 13 ), PEs are frequently undetected by clinicians ( 14 ). The clinical significance of PEs in childhood and adolescence and its role in the transition to psychopathology is not fully understood yet ( 15 , 16 ). Although PEs have been suggested as predictors of mental disorders in the general population ( 17 ) and psychotic symptoms in youth at clinical high risk for psychosis ( 18 ), recent studies in the general population have highlighted that what makes such experiences psychopathologically relevant is not the experiences per se , but rather their co-occurrence with other domains of non-psychotic comorbidity (e.g., depression, anxiety and PTSD) ( 9 , 19 ) as well as the presence of other vulnerability factors such as a history of adverse childhood events ( 20 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%