ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND Preventing or delaying the onset of psychosis requires identification of those at risk for developing psychosis. For predictive purposes, the prodrome – a constellation of symptoms which may occur before the onset of psychosis – has been increasingly recognized as having utility. However, it is unclear what proportion of patients are expected to experience a prodrome or how this varies according to the definition used.
METHODS We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of patients with psychosis with the objective of determining the proportion of patients who experienced a prodrome prior to psychosis onset. Inclusion criteria included a consistent prodrome definition and reporting the proportion of patients who experienced a prodrome. We excluded studies of only patients with a prodrome or solely substance-induced psychosis, qualitative studies without prevalence data, conference abstracts, and case reports/case series. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase (Ovid), APA PsycInfo (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, APA PsycBooks (Ovid), ProQuest Dissertation & Thesis, on March 3, 2021. Studies were assessed for quality using the Critical Appraisal Checklist for Prevalence Studies. Narrative synthesis and proportion meta-analysis were used to estimate prodrome prevalence. I2 and predictive interval were used to assess heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses were used to probe sources of heterogeneity. (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021239797).
RESULTS Seventy-one articles were included, representing 13,774 patients. Studies varied significantly in terms of methodology and prodrome definition used. The random effects proportion meta-analysis estimate for prodrome prevalence was 78.3% (95% CI= 72.8-83.2); heterogeneity was high (I2 97.98% [95% CI= 97.71-98.22]); and the prediction interval was wide (95% PI= 0.411-0.936). There were no meaningful differences in prevalence between grouped prodrome definitions, and subgroup analyses failed to reveal a consistent source of heterogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS This is the first meta-analysis on the prevalence of a prodrome prior to the onset of first episode psychosis. The majority of patients (78.3%) were found to experience a prodrome prior to psychosis onset. However, findings are highly heterogenous across study and no definitive source of heterogeneity was found. As most studies were retrospective in nature, recall bias likely affects these results. While the large majority of patients with psychosis experience a prodrome in some form, it is unclear if the remainder of patients experience no prodrome, or if ascertainment methods employed in the studies were not sensitive to their experiences. Given widespread investment in indicated prevention of psychosis through prospective identification and intervention during the prodrome, a resolution of this question as well as a consensus definition of the prodrome is much needed in order to effectively direct services, and may be accomplished through novel, densely sampled prospective cohort studies.
Competing Interest Statement
No funding was received in connection to this review. D.B. is a shareholder, founder, and employee of Aifred Health, a digital mental health company which was not involved in any way with this review and whose work is not relevant to the aims of this review. D.B. did not receive funding from Aifred Health in connection to this review.
Funding Statement
No funding was received in connection to this review.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
DATA AND CODE AVAILABILITY: Analyses were carried out using commercially available software. Data required to reproduce analyses are included in Table 1 and 2.
