ORCID Profile
0000-0002-5224-4563
Current Organisations
Clienia Schlössli AG Privatklinik für Psychiatrie
,
University of Zurich
,
University of Nicosia Medical School
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: American Medical Association (AMA)
Date: 02-2021
DOI: 10.1001/JAMAPSYCHIATRY.2015.2324
Abstract: In iduals can be classified as being at clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis if they meet at least one of the ultra-high-risk (UHR) inclusion criteria (brief limited intermittent psychotic symptoms [BLIPS] and/or attenuated psychotic symptoms [APS] and/or genetic risk and deterioration syndrome [GRD]) and/or basic symptoms [BS]. The meta-analytical risk of psychosis of these different subgroups is still unknown. To compare the risk of psychosis in CHR in iduals who met at least one of the major inclusion criteria and in in iduals not at CHR for psychosis (CHR-). Electronic databases (Web of Science, MEDLINE, Scopus) were searched until June 18, 2015, along with investigation of citations of previous publications and a manual search of the reference lists of retrieved articles. We included original follow-up studies of CHR in iduals who reported the risk of psychosis classified according to the presence of any BLIPS, APS and GRD, APS alone, GRD alone, BS, and CHR-. Independent extraction by multiple observers and random-effects meta-analysis of proportions. Moderators were tested with meta-regression analyses (Bonferroni corrected). Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 index. Sensitivity analyses tested robustness of results. Publication biases were assessed with funnel plots and the Egger test. The proportion of each subgroup with any psychotic disorder at 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 or more months of follow-up. Thirty-three independent studies comprising up to 4227 in iduals were included. The meta-analytical proportion of in iduals meeting each UHR subgroup at intake was: 0.85 APS (95%CI, 0.79-0.90), 0.1 BLIPS (95%CI, 0.06-0.14), and 0.05 GRD (95%CI, 0.03-0.07). There were no significant differences in psychosis risk at any time point between the APS and GRD and the APS-alone subgroups. There was a higher risk of psychosis in the any BLIPS greater than APS greater than GRD-alone subgroups at 24, 36, and 48 or more months of follow-up. There was no evidence that the GRD subgroup has a higher risk of psychosis than the CHR- subgroup. There were too few BS or BS and UHR studies to allow robust conclusions. There is meta-analytical evidence that BLIPS represents separate risk subgroup compared with the APS. The GRD subgroup is infrequent and not associated with an increased risk of psychosis. Future studies are advised to stratify their findings across these different subgroups. The CHR guidelines should be updated to reflect these differences.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 19-08-2019
Abstract: In the last 2 decades, several neuroimaging studies investigated brain abnormalities associated with the early stages of psychosis in the hope that these could aid the prediction of onset and clinical outcome. Despite advancements in the field, neuroimaging has yet to deliver. This is in part explained by the use of univariate analytical techniques, small s les and lack of statistical power, lack of external validation of potential biomarkers, and lack of integration of nonimaging measures (eg, genetic, clinical, cognitive data). PSYSCAN is an international, longitudinal, multicenter study on the early stages of psychosis which uses machine learning techniques to analyze imaging, clinical, cognitive, and biological data with the aim of facilitating the prediction of psychosis onset and outcome. In this article, we provide an overview of the PSYSCAN protocol and we discuss benefits and methodological challenges of large multicenter studies that employ neuroimaging measures.
Publisher: American Psychiatric Association Publishing
Date: 09-2017
DOI: 10.1176/APPI.PS.201600114
Abstract: The study explored relationships between preferences for and experiences of clinical decision making (CDM) with service use among persons with severe mental illness. Data from a prospective observational study in six European countries were examined. Associations of baseline staff-rated (N=213) and patient-rated (N=588) preferred and experienced decision making with service use were examined at baseline by using binomial regressions and at 12-month follow-up by using multilevel models. A preference by patients and staff for active patient involvement in decision making, rather than shared or passive decision making, was associated with longer hospital admissions and higher costs at baseline and with increases in admissions over 12 months (p=.043). Low patient-rated satisfaction with an experienced clinical decision was also related to increased costs over the study period (p=.005). A preference for shared decision making may reduce health care costs by reducing inpatient admissions. Patient satisfaction with decisions was a predictor of costs, and clinicians should maximize patient satisfaction with CDM.
Location: Switzerland
No related grants have been discovered for Wolfram Kawohl.