- Framework of problems / Objective
- Failure to define clinically meaningful outcomes
- Concerns Regarding Strength of Conclusions in Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Neuroradiological Abnormalities in First-Episode Psychosis
| Ref ID | 1008 |
| First Author | B. Dralle |
| Journal | JAMA PSYCHIATRY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2024 |
| URL | https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/2811489 |
| Keywords |
Mental health Expertise Diagnostic |
| Problem(s) |
Failure to define clinically meaningful outcomes Spin or subjective interpretation of findings |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 1 |
| Summary of Findings | The letter authors found 3 points of concern in the strength of the conclusions: 1) The definition of “clinical relevance” is unclear, particularly when applied to white matter abnormalities. 2) The authors overemphasize conclusions from the leave-one-out sensitivity analysis regarding the relative risk of clinically relevant abnormalities in patients with FEP vs controls. 3) The opportunity cost associated with MRI is not adequately addressed. Although the authors note the cost to detect 1 abnormality in Europe is approximately $4752, and in the US, it is higher (approximately $23 400), the potential benefits of alternative allocations such as medication, housing, food, and vocational rehabilitation were not considered. must also be considered |
| Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | Not Applicable |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? |