Published online Mar 16, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i8.2420
Peer-review started: September 29, 2021
First decision: December 2, 2021
Revised: December 14, 2021
Accepted: January 22, 2022
Article in press: January 22, 2022
Published online: March 16, 2022
An accurate identification of individuals at ultra-high risk (UHR) based on psychometric tools to prospectively identify psychosis as early as possible is required for indicated preventive intervention. The diagnostic comparability of several psychometric tools, including the comprehensive assessment of at risk mental state (CAARMS), the structured interview for psychosis-risk syndrome (SIPS) and the bonn scale for the assessment of basic symptoms (BSABS), is unknown.
To address the psychometric comparability of CAARMS, SIPS and BSABS for subjects who are close relatives of patients with schizophrenia.
In total, 189 participants aged 18-58 years who were lineal relative by blood and collateral relatives by blood up to the third degree of kinship of patients with schizophrenia were interviewed in the period of May 2017 to January 2019. Relatives of the participants diagnosed schizophrenia were excluded. All the participants were assessed for a UHR state by three psychometric tools (CAARMS, SIPS and BSABS). The psychometric diagnosis results included at risk of psychosis (UHR+), not at risk of psychosis (UHR-) and psychosis. Demographic and clinical characteristics were also measured. The inter-rater agreement was assessed for evaluation of the coherence of the three scales. Transition rates for UHR+ subjects to psychosis within 2 years were also recorded.
The overall agreement percentages were 93.12%, 92.06% and 93.65% of CAARMS and SIPS, SIPS and BSABS and CAARMS and BSABS, respectively. The overall agreement percentage of the relative functional impairment of the three groups (UHR+, not at risk of psychosis and psychosis) were 89.24%, 86.36% and 88.12%, respectively. The inter-rater reliability of the CAARMS, SIPS and BSABS total score was 0.90, 0.89 and 0.85. The inter-rater reliability was very good to excellent for all the subscales of these three instruments. For CAARMS, SIPS and BSABS, the kappa coefficient about UHR criteria agreement was 0.87, 0.84 and 0.82, respectively (P < 0.001). The transition rates of UHR+ to psychosis within 2 years were 16.7% (CAARMS), 10.0% (SIPS) and 17.7% (BSABS).
There is good diagnostic agreement between the CAARMS, SIPS and BSABS towards identification of UHR participants who are close relatives of patients with schizophrenia.
Core Tip: To address the psychometric comparability of the comprehensive assessment of at risk mental state, Structured Interview for Psychosis-Risk Syndrome and Bonn Scale for the Assessment of Basic Symptoms for the assessment of participants who were lineal relative or collateral relatives by blood up to three generations of patients with schizophrenia, 189 participants were interviewed for an ultra-high risk state. The final conclusion was that there is good diagnostic agreement among these three instruments. Also, these three instruments may assess and detect at-risk mental states in these participants reliably and validly.
- Citation: Wang P, Yan CD, Dong XJ, Geng L, Xu C, Nie Y, Zhang S. Identification and predictive analysis for participants at ultra-high risk of psychosis: A comparison of three psychometric diagnostic interviews. World J Clin Cases 2022; 10(8): 2420-2428
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v10/i8/2420.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v10.i8.2420
Indicated preventive intervention brings new hope for impacting the course of psychosis since treatments for psychosis substantially improve outcomes[1,2]. Therefore, an accurate identification of individuals at clinical high risk (CHR) based on psychometric tools to prospectively identify psychosis as early as possible is required to allow preventative screening, diagnosis and interventions[3-5].
During the development of psychiatry, psychometric tools were created, analyzed and confirmed. These tools include the comprehensive assessment of at risk mental state (CAARMS), the Structured Interview for Psychosis-Risk Syndrome (SIPS) and the Basel Screening Instrument for Psychosis for the assessment of “ultra-high risk” (UHR) patients. The Bonn Scale for the Assessment of Basic Symptoms (BSABS) and the Schizophrenia Proneness Instruments are used to assess basic symptoms.
A screening test should identify those potential individuals developing the disease[6], and a prognostic test is necessary for prediction of the future disease development when a patient has ominous signs or symptoms. However, criteria for UHR as a screening test rely on subjectively experienced disturbances of perception, thinking, language and attention[7].
Both the CAARMS and the SIPS can distinguish UHR subjects from large group of individuals with high-risk services for potential UHR symptoms. Moreover, the CAARMS and the SIPS demonstrate the similar construct and criteria, which show same predictive values in the follow-up[8,9]. Meanwhile, the prevalence of the condition would affect the predictive values which are not fixed indicators[6].
However, there is little evidence of a single recognized standard among these instruments for UHR identification in China, especially in participants who are lineal relative or collateral relatives of schizophrenia patients. The development of future large-scale UHR multicenter studies was affected significantly by psychometric uncertainty because of amplifying heterogeneity across individual sites. These concerns and conjecture have never been examined practically.
We present this study of UHR assessment in participants who are lineal relative or collateral relatives by blood up to three generations of patients with schizophrenia by using the CAARMS, SIPS and BSABS. Our principal aim was to address the psychometric comparability of the CAARMS, SIPS and BSABS for these participants. Our secondary aim was to verify the viability and reliability of these three instruments for these participants.
For the research group, we included participants who were a lineal relative by blood and collateral relative by blood up to the third degree of kinship of patients with schizophrenia diagnosed in the Affiliated Wuhan Mental Health Center, Tongji Medical College of Huazhong University of Science & Technology from May 2017 to January 2019. All the participants were assessed for UHR by three psychometric tools, including CAARMS, SIPS and BSABS. Participants were recruited from the Wuhan Mental Health Center and were able to be contacted by telephone or an internet homepage.
The CAARMS, a semi-structured clinical interview, covers different aspects of attenuated psychopathology or functioning. It consists of 27 items, each item rated in terms of intensity from 0 to 6 and frequency/duration from 0 to 6, which can be classified into seven subscales, including positive symptoms, cognitive change, attention/concentration/emotional disturbance, negative symptoms, behavioral change, motor/physical changes and general psychopathology. Positive symptoms, including delusions, hallucinations and thought disorder, of the CAARMS are used to determine both the UHR criteria and the threshold for psychosis.
The SIPS, a semi-structured clinical interview, consists of six parts, including Family History Questionnaire, The scale of psychosis-risk symptoms, the global assessment of functioning (GAF), schizotypal personality disorder checklist (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition), Summary of SIPS data and Summary of SIPS syndrome criteria. The symptoms score from 0 to 6 in terms of intensity, frequency/duration, influence and degree of conflict.
The BSABS, a semi-structured clinical interview, consists of 92 items classified into six rating scales, including adynamia (A + B), cognitive disorder (C), cenesthesia experience (D), dysfunction of central autonomic nerve (E) and self-protection (F).
All the participants participated in the CAARMS, SIPS and BSABS assessments for early detection of schizophrenia. At the end of the diagnostic interview assessment, the psychometric diagnosis results included at risk of psychosis, not at risk of psychosis, and psychosis. Demographic and clinical characteristics were also measured.
The inter-rater agreement was assessed for the evaluation of the coherence of the three instruments. The transition rates of psychosis from at risk of psychosis individuals within 2 years were also recorded.
All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 22.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, United States). Intra-class correlation coefficients were calculated to estimate intra-scale reliability, and the kappa coefficient was calculated to evaluate the inter-scale and inter-rater agreement on the diagnosis. Comparisons among groups were examined using the Kruskal-Wallis test, and post-hoc analyses were performed using the Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction. P < 0.05 indicated statistical significance.
The research group consisted of 189 participants who were lineal or collateral relatives of schizophrenia patients who were diagnosed between May 2017 and January 2019.
Of the research group participants, 68 were females (35.98%). The mean age was 35.54 years (standard deviation = 4.15, range = 18-58 years).
Diagnostic comparison of CAARMS and SIPS (Table 1): The overall agreement percent was 93.12% (expected agreement by chance: 35.12%), and the kappa was a substantial 0.745 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.663-0.859]. The analysis weighted for the relative functional impairment of the three groups (at risk of psychosis, not at risk of psychosis and psychosis) was determined. The overall agreement percent was 89.24% (expected agreement: 46.38%), and the kappa was 0.796 (95%CI: 0.681-0.895).
| SIPS outcomes | Total | |||||
| UHR- | UHR+ | Psychosis | ||||
| CAARMS outcomes | UHR- | Count | 162 | 0 | 0 | 162 |
| Ratio, % | 85.71 | 0 | 0 | 85.71 | ||
| UHR+ | Count | 4 | 5 | 3 | 12 | |
| Ratio, % | 2.11 | 2.65 | 1.59 | 6.35 | ||
| Psychosis | Count | 1 | 5 | 9 | 15 | |
| Ratio, % | 0.53 | 2.65 | 4.76 | 7.94 | ||
| Total | Count | 167 | 10 | 12 | 189 | |
| Ratio, % | 88.36 | 5.3 | 6.35 | 100 | ||
Diagnostic comparison of SIPS and BSABS (Table 2): The overall agreement percent was 92.06% (expected agreement by chance: 31.93%), and the kappa was a substantial 0.728 (95%CI: 0.648-0.825). The relative functional impairment of the three groups was analyzed. The overall agreement percent was 86.36% (expected agreement: 44.27%), and the kappa was 0.759 (95%CI: 0.676-0.854).
| SIPS outcomes | Total | |||||
| UHR- | UHR+ | Psychosis | ||||
| BSABS outcomes | UHR- | Count | 159 | 0 | 0 | 159 |
| Ratio, % | 84.13 | 0 | 0 | 84.13 | ||
| UHR+ | Count | 6 | 7 | 4 | 17 | |
| Ratio, % | 3.17 | 3.7 | 2.12 | 8.99 | ||
| Psychosis | Count | 2 | 3 | 8 | 13 | |
| Ratio, % | 1.06 | 1.59 | 4.23 | 6.88 | ||
| Total | Count | 167 | 10 | 12 | 189 | |
| Ratio, % | 88.36 | 5.29 | 6.35 | 100 | ||
Diagnostic comparison of CAARMS and BSABS (Table 3): The overall agreement percent was 93.65% (expected agreement by chance: 34.07%), and the kappa was a substantial 0.767 (95%CI: 0.678-0.881). The analysis for the relative functional impairment of all the groups was performed. The overall agreement percent and the kappa was 88.12% (expected agreement: 45.52%) and 0.778 (95%CI: 0.680-0.873), respectively.
| CAARMS outcomes | Total | |||||
| UHR− | UHR+ | Psychosis | ||||
| BSABS outcomes | UHR− | Count | 158 | 1 | 0 | 159 |
| Ratio, % | 83.6 | 0.53 | 0 | 84.13 | ||
| UHR+ | Count | 3 | 9 | 5 | 17 | |
| Ratio, % | 1.58 | 4.76 | 2.65 | 8.99 | ||
| Psychosis | Count | 1 | 2 | 10 | 13 | |
| Ratio, % | 0.53 | 1.06 | 5.29 | 6.88 | ||
| Total | Count | 162 | 12 | 15 | 189 | |
| Ratio, % | 85.71 | 6.35 | 7.94 | 100 | ||
The inter-rater reliability of the CAARMS, SIPS and BSABS total score were 0.90, 0.89 and 0.85, respectively. The inter-rater reliability of these three scales ranged from very good to excellent for the seven subscales of CAARMS, six subscales of SIPS and five subscales of BSABS. The kappa coefficient for the agreement on the UHR criteria among three raters of theses three scales were 0.87, 0.84 and 0.82, respectively (P < 0.001) (Table 4).
| ICC | |
| CAARMS Subscale | |
| Positive symptoms | 0.93 |
| Cognitive change | 0.75 |
| Attention/concentration/emotional disturbance | 0.74 |
| Negative symptoms | 0.88 |
| Behavioral change | 0.75 |
| Motor/physical changes | 0.85 |
| General psychopathology | 0.93 |
| Total | 0.9 |
| SIPS Subscale | |
| Family History Questionnaire | 0.9 |
| The Scale of Psychosis-Risk Symptoms | 0.8 |
| The Global Assessment of Functioning | 0.72 |
| Schizotypal Personality Disorder Checklist (DSM-5) | 0.81 |
| Summary of SIPS data | 0.92 |
| Summary of SIPS syndrome criteria | 0.88 |
| Total | 0.89 |
| BSABS Subscale | |
| Adynamia (A + B) | 0.87 |
| Cognitive disorder € | 0.76 |
| Cenesthesia experience (D) | 0.82 |
| Dysfunction of central autonomic nerve € | 0.88 |
| Self-protection (F) | 0.89 |
| Total | 0.85 |
The transition rates of at risk of psychosis to psychosis within 2 years were 16.7% (CAARMS), 10.0% (SIPS) and 17.7% (BSABS) (Table 5).
| UHR+ | Outcomes after 2 years follow-up | Transition rates, % | ||
| Psychosis | No psychosis | |||
| CAARMS | 12 | 2 | 10 | 16.7 |
| SIPS | 10 | 1 | 9 | 10 |
| BSABS | 17 | 3 | 14 | 17.7 |
An accurate identification of individuals at CHR, which is the preventive intervention for psychosis, will substantially improve the outcomes of these individuals. The use of accurate and proper tools to detect psychosis as early as possible for prognosis is very necessary[2]. The aim of this study was to test the comparability of three psychometric instruments (CAARMS, SIPS and BSABS) most frequently used in China to interview participants who were lineal or collateral relatives of patients with schizophrenia. The results indicated that these three instruments have good psychometric properties, and all were reliable and valid for early identification and predictive analysis in this population. Moreover, there were good inter-rater correlation coefficients of each scales.
A prodromal phase named the at-risk mental state (ARMS) precedes most psychotic disorders. Though it is unclear about the most effective therapies, the remained time of and sustained effects, the potential intervention for ARMS groups may take effect on preventing or delaying the onset of psychosis and then improve the outcome for the reduction of untreated psychosis period. In some earliest UHR studies, transition rates of first year from ARMS to psychosis were about 40%[10,11], while a later study reported the transition rate of ARMS to psychosis as 7%-16% within 2 years[12].
Specific psychometric interviews that assess validated CHR criteria are usually accomplished with prognostic testing[13], such as the CAARMS[14], the SIPS[15] and the BSABS[16]. These instruments make a comprehensive analysis for CHR through age, social function, family history of psychosis, symptom score, frequency and duration of symptoms.
Daneault et al[17] claimed that the development of the SIPS was influenced by the CAARMS. The first aim of this study was to verify the diagnostic comparability of CAARMS vs SIPS and BSABS in 189 participants who were lineal relatives and collateral relative of patients with schizophrenia. There was overall substantial agreement (kappa) between the CAARMS and SIPS, SIPS and BSABS and CAARMS and BSABS. These three instruments show similar psychometric parameters, such as excellent reliability properties. A parallel proportion of true positives over time was shown in a previous study about CAARMS and SIPS[9]. In a recent meta-analysis, help-seeking individuals interviewed with CAARMS and SIPS showed similar excellent prognostic accuracy in ruling out psychosis risk[18].
Different CAARMS or SIPS versions in different countries were compared in previous studies. An excellent reliability was shown in these CHR scales used by trained raters: the overall inter-rater agreement was 0.95, 0.85 and 0.91 for the SIPS[19], the CAARMS[20] and the Schizophrenia Proneness Instruments Adult version[21], respectively. Pelizza et al[22] tested the reliability and validity for the help-seeking population evaluated by the authorized Italian version of the CAARMS. The results indicated that CAARMS version may assess and detect ARMS reliably and validly in an Italian polulation, which may also predict transition to psychosis helpfully. Another study observed that there was overall substantial diagnostic agreement between the CAARMS 12/2006 and the SIPS 5.0 in the identification of UHR subjects[23]. We also observed in this study that the CAARMS and the SIPS had similar reliability and validity when used to interview the special population of close relatives of patients with schizophrenia.
Moreover, reliability of the CAARMS, SIPS and BSABS in this study was assessed by inter-rater reliability and internal consistency. The intra-class correlation coefficients of three scales subscale displayed good to excellent reliability, which was similar to the original validation study[12]. The inter-rater reliability for the overall score was 0.90 for total subscales. These findings demonstrate that all the three instruments can be evaluate the early identification of schizophrenia in the population of lineal relative of these patients clinically. Furthermore, the inter-rater reliability of the UHR inclusion criteria of the three scales was also approving. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient reflecting internal consistency for the CAARMS total score was 0.89.
In this study, a 2-year follow-up showed that the transition rates of UHR to psychosis were 16.7% (CAARMS), 10.0% (SIPS) and 17.7% (BSABS). These rates were slightly higher than in previous studies[10-12]. We hypothesize that the participants selected for this study were at a higher risk of psychosis because they were lineal relatives or collateral relatives in three generations of patients with schizophrenia.
If comparability, viability, reliability and practicability are considered, then we suggest that CAARMS and BSABS are easier and more convenient for interviewing participants who are close relatives including lineal or collateral relatives by blood up to three generations of schizophrenia patients in China.
This study had some limitations. First, a long-term follow-up was not performed. Second, the recruitment type may have impacted the observed substantial agreement between the three instruments[24]. Also, it is possible that the UHR patients who did not meet the SIPS criteria were undetected by the referrers. This may have inflated the observed agreement. In one study, there were significant differences between the CAARMS and the SIPS in other epidemiological samples of non-help-seeking subjects[25].
There is good diagnostic agreement between the CAARMS, SIPS and BSABS towards identification of CHR participants who are close relatives of patients with schizophrenia. Also, the three instruments are reliable and valid for assessing and detecting at-risk mental states in these subjects.
Indicated preventive intervention is the new hope for affecting the psychosis progress since treatments for psychosis substantially improve outcomes. Therefore, an accurate identification of individuals at ultra-high risk (UHR) based on psychometric tools to prospectively identify psychosis as early as possible is required to allow preventative screening, diagnosis and interventions. With the development of psychiatry, psychometric tools have been created, analyzed and confirmed. There is little evidence of a single recognized standard among these instruments for UHR identification in China.
In total, 189 participants who were the lineal relative or collateral relatives by blood up to the third degree of kinship of schizophrenia patients were interviewed to identify a UHR state by three psychometric tools, including the comprehensive assessment of at-risk mental states (CAARMS), the Structured Interview for psychosis-risk syndrome (SIPS) and the bonn scale for the assessment of basic symptoms (BSABS), which are the most common instruments in China.
To address the psychometric comparability of the CAARMS, SIPS and BSABS for assessment of close relative of schizophrenia patients and to verify the viability and reliability of these three instruments for these participants.
All of the participants were assessed for a UHR state by the CAARMS, SIPS and BSABS. The psychometric diagnosis results included at risk of psychosis, not at risk of psychosis and psychosis. Demographic and clinical characteristics were also measured. The inter-rater agreement was assessed for evaluation of the coherence of the three instruments. The transition rates of at risk of psychosis to psychosis within 2 years were also recorded.
The overall agreement percentages were 93.12% for CAARMS and SIPS, 92.06% for SIPS and BSABS and 93.65% for CAARMS and BSABS. Moreover, the inter-rater reliability of the CAARMS, SIPS and BSABS total score was 0.90, 0.89 and 0.85, respectively. For all the subscales of these three scales, the inter-rater reliability varied from very good to excellent. The transition rates of at risk of psychosis to psychosis within 2 years were about 16.7% (CAARMS), 10.0% (SIPS) and 17.7% (BSABS).
It showed a good diagnostic agreement between the CAARMS, SIPS and BSABS in identification of UHR participants who are close relative of patients with schizophrenia. Also, these three instruments are reliable and valid tools for at-risk mental states assessment and detection in these participants.
The lineal and collateral relatives by blood up to the third generations of schizophrenia patients are clinical high-risk participants. Early detection aids in initiation of preventive intervention and can provide substantially improved outcomes. A multicenter interview and follow-up of these participants by different instruments will provide more experience and value for clinical high-risk participants.
Provenance and peer review: Unsolicited article; Externally peer reviewed.
Peer-review model: Single blind
Specialty type: Psychology
Country/Territory of origin: China
Peer-review report’s scientific quality classification
Grade A (Excellent): A
Grade B (Very good): B
Grade C (Good): 0
Grade D (Fair): 0
Grade E (Poor): 0
P-Reviewer: Seeman MV, Vukojević J S-Editor: Ma YJ L-Editor: A P-Editor: Ma YJ
| 1. | Insel TR. Rethinking schizophrenia. Nature. 2010;468:187-193. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 1171] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1168] [Article Influence: 83.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 2. | McGorry PD. Early clinical phenotypes, clinical staging, and strategic biomarker research: building blocks for personalized psychiatry. Biol Psychiatry. 2013;74:394-395. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 59] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 55] [Article Influence: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 3. | Addington J, Stowkowy J, Weiser M. Screening tools for clinical high risk for psychosis. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2015;9:345-356. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 50] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 51] [Article Influence: 5.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 4. | Fusar-Poli P, Carpenter WT, Woods SW, McGlashan TH. Attenuated psychosis syndrome: ready for DSM-5.1? Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2014;10:155-192. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 104] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 107] [Article Influence: 10.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 5. | Stafford MR, Jackson H, Mayo-Wilson E, Morrison AP, Kendall T. Early interventions to prevent psychosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2013;346:f185. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 318] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 276] [Article Influence: 25.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 6. | Michel C, Schultze-Lutter F, Schimmelmann BG. Screening instruments in child and adolescent psychiatry: general and methodological considerations. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2014;23:725-727. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 16] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 16] [Article Influence: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (7)] |
| 7. | Schultze-Lutter F. Subjective symptoms of schizophrenia in research and the clinic: the basic symptom concept. Schizophr Bull. 2009;35:5-8. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 205] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 191] [Article Influence: 12.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 8. | Schultze-Lutter F, Michel C, Schmidt SJ, Schimmelmann BG, Maric NP, Salokangas RK, Riecher-Rössler A, van der Gaag M, Nordentoft M, Raballo A, Meneghelli A, Marshall M, Morrison A, Ruhrmann S, Klosterkötter J. EPA guidance on the early detection of clinical high risk states of psychoses. Eur Psychiatry. 2015;30:405-416. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 246] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 237] [Article Influence: 26.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 9. | Fusar-Poli P, Bonoldi I, Yung AR, Borgwardt S, Kempton MJ, Valmaggia L, Barale F, Caverzasi E, McGuire P. Predicting psychosis: meta-analysis of transition outcomes in individuals at high clinical risk. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2012;69:220-229. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 964] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 979] [Article Influence: 81.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 10. | Yung AR, Yuen HP, McGorry PD, Phillips LJ, Kelly D, Dell'Olio M, Francey SM, Cosgrave EM, Killackey E, Stanford C, Godfrey K, Buckby J. Mapping the onset of psychosis: the Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2005;39:964-971. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 1283] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1371] [Article Influence: 72.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 11. | McGlashan TH, Zipursky RB, Perkins D, Addington J, Miller T, Woods SW, Hawkins KA, Hoffman RE, Preda A, Epstein I, Addington D, Lindborg S, Trzaskoma Q, Tohen M, Breier A. Randomized, double-blind trial of olanzapine vs placebo in patients prodromally symptomatic for psychosis. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163:790-799. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 264] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 286] [Article Influence: 15.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 12. | Yung AR, Phillips LJ, Nelson B, Francey SM, PanYuen H, Simmons MB, Ross ML, Kelly D, Baker K, Amminger GP, Berger G, Thompson AD, Thampi A, McGorry PD. Randomized controlled trial of interventions for young people at ultra high risk for psychosis: 6-month analysis. J Clin Psychiatry. 2011;72:430-440. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 100] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 100] [Article Influence: 7.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 13. | Fusar-Poli P, Borgwardt S, Bechdolf A, Addington J, Riecher-Rössler A, Schultze-Lutter F, Keshavan M, Wood S, Ruhrmann S, Seidman LJ, Valmaggia L, Cannon T, Velthorst E, De Haan L, Cornblatt B, Bonoldi I, Birchwood M, McGlashan T, Carpenter W, McGorry P, Klosterkötter J, McGuire P, Yung A. The psychosis high-risk state: a comprehensive state-of-the-art review. JAMA Psychiatry. 2013;70:107-120. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 943] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 957] [Article Influence: 87.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 14. | Yung AR, Phillips LJ, Yuen HP, Phillips JL. Comprehensive Assessment of at Risk Mental State. Parkville: PACE Clinic, ORYGEN Research Centre, University of Melbourne, 2006. [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 35] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 15] [Article Influence: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 15. | Hawla R. The psychosis-risk syndrome: handbook for diagnosis and follow-up. Psychiat serv. 63:191-192. [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 29] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 29] [Article Influence: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 16. | J Klosterkötter, Gross G, Huber G, Wieneke A, Schultze-Lutter F. Evaluation of the "Bonn Scale for the Assessment of Basic Symptoms-BSABS" as an instrument for the assessment of schizophrenia proneness: A review of recent findings. Neurol Psychiat BR. 5:137-150. [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 17. | Daneault JG, Stip E; Refer-O-Scope Group. Genealogy of instruments for prodrome evaluation of psychosis. Front Psychiatry. 2013;4:25. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 23] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 21] [Article Influence: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 18. | Fusar-Poli P, Cappucciati M, Rutigliano G, Schultze-Lutter F, Bonoldi I, Borgwardt S, Riecher-Rössler A, Addington J, Perkins D, Woods SW, McGlashan TH, Lee J, Klosterkötter J, Yung AR, McGuire P. At risk or not at risk? World Psychiatry. 2015;14:322-332. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 193] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 181] [Article Influence: 20.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 19. | Miller TJ, McGlashan TH, Rosen JL, Cadenhead K, Cannon T, Ventura J, McFarlane W, Perkins DO, Pearlson GD, Woods SW. Prodromal assessment with the structured interview for prodromal syndromes and the scale of prodromal symptoms: predictive validity, interrater reliability, and training to reliability. Schizophr Bull. 2003;29:703-715. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 1153] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1216] [Article Influence: 60.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 20. | Yung AR, Stanford C, Cosgrave E, Killackey E, Phillips L, Nelson B, McGorry PD. Testing the Ultra High Risk (prodromal) criteria for the prediction of psychosis in a clinical sample of young people. Schizophr Res. 2006;84:57-66. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 190] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 179] [Article Influence: 9.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 21. | Schultze-Lutter F, Klosterkötter J, Picker H, Steinmeyer EM, Ruhrmann S. Predicting first-episode psychosis by basic symptom criteria. Clin neuropsychiatry. 4:11-22. [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 22. | Pelizza L, Paterlini F, Azzali S, Garlassi S, Scazza I, Pupo S, Simmons M, Nelson B, Raballo A. The approved Italian version of the comprehensive assessment of at-risk mental states (CAARMS-ITA): Field test and psychometric features. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2019;13:810-817. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 22] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 20] [Article Influence: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 23. | Fusar-Poli P, Cappucciati M, Rutigliano G, Lee TY, Beverly Q, Bonoldi I, Lelli J, Kaar SJ, Gago E, Rocchetti M, Patel R, Bhavsar V, Tognin S, Badger S, Calem M, Lim K, Kwon JS, Perez J, McGuire P. Towards a Standard Psychometric Diagnostic Interview for Subjects at Ultra High Risk of Psychosis: CAARMS vs SIPS. Psychiatry J. 2016;2016:7146341. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 82] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 82] [Article Influence: 10.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 24. | Rietdijk J, Klaassen R, Ising H, Dragt S, Nieman DH, van de Kamp J, Cuijpers P, Linszen D, van der Gaag M. Detection of people at risk of developing a first psychosis: comparison of two recruitment strategies. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2012;126:21-30. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 58] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 53] [Article Influence: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 25. | Kelleher I, Murtagh A, Molloy C, Roddy S, Clarke MC, Harley M, Cannon M. Identification and characterization of prodromal risk syndromes in young adolescents in the community: a population-based clinical interview study. Schizophr Bull. 2012;38:239-246. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 98] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 101] [Article Influence: 8.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |