- 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 | 1015 |
| First Author | M. Forbes |
| Journal | JAMA PSYCHIATRY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2024 |
| URL | https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/2811490 |
| Keywords |
Mental health Expertise Diagnostic |
| Problem(s) |
Failure to define clinically meaningful outcomes |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 1 |
| Summary of Findings | The letter's authors believe that the systematic review has overestimated the usefulness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) due to their definition of “clinically relevant.” The authors point out that the definition of "clinically relevant" may have changed over the years covered by the review, and that may affect radiologist reports and referral rates, and thus, prevalence estimates. Furthermore, the most common clinically relevant abnormality reported is prevalence of white matter abnormalities of 0.9% but this estimate comes mainly from 2 studies, neither of which support this evidence. |
| 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? |