| 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 |
| Article Type | Editorial |
| Article Subtype | Comment/letter |
| First Author Country | Australia |
| Aim | A letter to the editor to report concerns regarding the strength of conclusions in a systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2023 on neuroradiological abnormalities in first-episode psychosis. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | From a letter to the editor to report concerns regarding the strength of conclusions in a systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2023 on neuroradiological abnormalities in first-episode psychosis. 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. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 1 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 1 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |