Prediction models in first-episode psychosis: systematic review and critical appraisal
- PMID: 35067242
- PMCID: PMC7612705
- DOI: 10.1192/bjp.2021.219
Prediction models in first-episode psychosis: systematic review and critical appraisal
Abstract
Background: People presenting with first-episode psychosis (FEP) have heterogenous outcomes. More than 40% fail to achieve symptomatic remission. Accurate prediction of individual outcome in FEP could facilitate early intervention to change the clinical trajectory and improve prognosis.
Aims: We aim to systematically review evidence for prediction models developed for predicting poor outcome in FEP.
Method: A protocol for this study was published on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, registration number CRD42019156897. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance, we systematically searched six databases from inception to 28 January 2021. We used the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies and the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool to extract and appraise the outcome prediction models. We considered study characteristics, methodology and model performance.
Results: Thirteen studies reporting 31 prediction models across a range of clinical outcomes met criteria for inclusion. Eleven studies used logistic regression with clinical and sociodemographic predictor variables. Just two studies were found to be at low risk of bias. Methodological limitations identified included a lack of appropriate validation, small sample sizes, poor handling of missing data and inadequate reporting of calibration and discrimination measures. To date, no model has been applied to clinical practice.
Conclusions: Future prediction studies in psychosis should prioritise methodological rigour and external validation in larger samples. The potential for prediction modelling in FEP is yet to be realised.
Keywords: Schizophrenia; outcome studies; precision medicine; prediction; psychotic disorders.
Conflict of interest statement
GVG has received support from H2020-EINFRA, the NIHR Birmingham ECMC, NIHR Birmingham SRMRC, the NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, and the MRC HDR UK, an initiative funded by UK Research and Innovation, Department of Health and Social Care (England), the devolved administrations, and leading medical research charities. JC has received grants from Wellcome Trust and Sackler Trust and honorariums from Johnson & Johnson. PKM has received honorariums from Sunovion and Sage and is a Director of Noux Technologies Limited. All other authors declare no competing interests.
References
-
- IHME. GBD Compare Data Visualization. IHME, University of Washington; Seattle, WA: 2021. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) [Internet]. Available from: http://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-compare.
-
- Lally J, Ajnakina O, Stubbs B, Cullinane M, Murphy KC, Gaughran F, et al. British Journal of Psychiatry. Vol. 211. The Royal College of Psychiatrists; 2017. [cited 2018 Jan 18]. Remission and recovery from first-episode psychosis in adults: Systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term outcome studies [Internet] pp. 350–8. - PubMed
-
- Darcy AM, Louie AK, Roberts LW. Machine Learning and the Profession of Medicine. [cited 2018 Jan 18];JAMA. 2016 Feb 9;315(6):551. [Internet] Available from: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?doi=10.1001/jama.2015.18421. - PubMed