↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Voxel‐based morphometry for separation of schizophrenia from other types of psychosis in first episode psychosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
283 Mendeley
Title
Voxel‐based morphometry for separation of schizophrenia from other types of psychosis in first episode psychosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011021.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lena Palaniyappan, Nicola Maayan, Hanna Bergman, Clare Davenport, Clive E Adams, Karla Soares‐Weiser

Abstract

Schizophrenia is a psychiatric disorder which involves distortions in thought and perception, blunted affect, and behavioural disturbances. The longer psychosis goes unnoticed and untreated, the more severe the repercussions for relapse and recovery. There is some evidence that early intervention services can help, and diagnostic techniques that could contribute to early intervention may offer clinical utility in these situations. The index test being evaluated in this review is the structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) analysis technique known as voxel-based morphometry (VBM) that estimates the distribution of grey matter tissue volume across several brain regions. This review is an exploratory examination of the diagnostic 'potential' of VBM for use as an additional tool in the clinical examination of patients with first episode psychosis to establish whether an individual will progress on to developing schizophrenia as opposed to other types of psychosis. To determine whether VBM applied to the brain can be used to differentiate schizophrenia from other types of psychosis in participants who have received a clinical diagnosis of first episode psychosis. In December 2013, we updated a previous search (May 2012) of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycInfo using OvidSP. We included retrospective and prospective studies that consecutively or randomly selected adolescent and adult participants (< 45 years) with a first episode of psychosis; and that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of VBM for differentiating schizophrenia from other psychoses compared with a clinical diagnosis made by a qualified mental health professional, with or without the use of standard operational criteria or symptom checklists. We excluded studies in children, and in adult participants with organic brain disorders or who were at high risk for schizophrenia, such as people with a genetic predisposition. Two review authors screened all references for inclusion. We assessed the quality of studies using the QUADAS-2 instrument. Due to a lack of data, we were not able to extract 2 x 2 data tables for each study nor undertake any meta-analysis. We included four studies with a total of 275 participants with first episode psychosis. VBM was not used to diagnose schizophrenia in any of the studies, instead VBM was used to quantify the magnitude of differences in grey matter volume. Therefore, none of the included studies reported data that could be used in the analysis, and we summarised the findings narratively for each study. There is no evidence to currently support diagnosing schizophrenia (as opposed to other psychotic disorders) using the pattern of brain changes seen in VBM studies in patients with first episode psychosis. VBM has the potential to discriminate between diagnostic categories but the methods to do this reliably are currently in evolution. In addition, the lack of applicability of the use of VBM to clinical practice in the studies to date limits the usefulness of VBM as a diagnostic aid to differentiate schizophrenia from other types of psychotic presentations in people with first episode of psychosis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 283 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 282 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 14%
Student > Bachelor 39 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 11%
Researcher 31 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 6%
Other 36 13%
Unknown 88 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 50 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 48 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 8%
Social Sciences 11 4%
Neuroscience 11 4%
Other 38 13%
Unknown 101 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 March 2016.
All research outputs
#14,657,487
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,845
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,798
of 276,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#217
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 276,020 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 257 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.