The DOI matches its Crossref record; 104 of the 112 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Clinical Validity of DSM-5 Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome: Advances in Diagnosis, Prognosis, and Treatment
Open accessAbstract
Importance: Since the release of the DSM-5 diagnosis of attenuated psychosis syndrome (DSM-5-APS) in 2013, several research studies have investigated its clinical validity. Although critical and narrative reviews have reviewed these progresses, no systematic review has comprehensively summarized the available evidence regarding the clinical validity of DSM-5-APS. Objective: To provide current evidence on the clinical validity of DSM-5-APS, focusing on recent advances in diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. Evidence Review: A multistep literature search using the Web of Science database, Cochrane Central Register of Reviews, Ovid/PsychINFO, conference proceedings, and trial registries from database inception to June 16, 2019, was conducted following PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines and PROSPERO protocol. Studies with original data investigating individuals diagnosed using DSM-5-APS or meeting comparable criteria were included. The results of the systematic review were summarized in tables and narratively synthesized against established evidence-based antecedent, concurrent, and prognostic validators. A quantitative meta-analysis was conducted to explore the cumulative risk of psychosis onset at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months in individuals diagnosed using DSM-5-APS criteria. Findings: The systematic review included 56 articles, which reported on 124 validators, including 15 antecedent, 55 concurrent, and 54 prognostic validators. The epidemiological prevalence of the general non-help-seeking young population meeting DSM-5-APS criteria was 0.3%; the prevalence of individuals meeting DSM-5-APS criteria was variable in clinical samples. The interrater reliability for DSM-5-APS criteria was comparable with that of other DSM-5 mental disorders and can be optimized by the use of specific psychometric instruments. DSM-5-APS criteria were associated with frequent depressive comorbid disorders, distress, suicidality, and functional impairment. The meta-analysis included 23 prospective cohort studies, including 2376 individuals. The meta-analytical risk of psychosis onset was 11% at 6 months, 15% at 12 months, 20% at 24 months, and 23% at 36 months. Research into predisposing and precipitating epidemiological factors, neurobiological correlates, and effective treatments for DSM-5-APS criteria has been limited. Conclusions and Relevance: Over recent years, DSM-5-APS criteria have received substantial concurrent and prognostic validation, mostly driven by research into the clinical high-risk state for psychosis. Precipitating and predisposing factors, neurobiological correlates, and effective treatments are undetermined to date.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“CAARMS 287 ***, SIPS 288 ***, DSM-5 APS 288 *** (0.90 pooled at 38 months) 74 ***”
From Preventive psychiatry: a blueprint for improving the mental health of young people (2021) · cites this paper as [288]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
American Psychiatric Association (2013) · doi:10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596 · Cited by 116,369
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
Williams, J. B. W., & First, M. B. (2013) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.013.104 · Cited by 109,845
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology<SUBTITLE>A Proposal for Reporting</SUBTITLE>
Stroup, D. F. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 · Cited by 20,623
(2000) · Cited by 9,198
Mapping the Onset of Psychosis: The Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States
Yung, A. R., Yung, A. R., Yuen, H. P., McGorry, P. D., Phillips, L., Kelly, D., Dell’Olio, M., Francey, S. M., Cosgrave, E., Killackey, E. J., et al. (2005) · Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1080/j.1440-1614.2005.01714.x · Cited by 2,284
Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis
Sterne, J. A. C., Egger, M., & Smith, G. D. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7304.101 · Cited by 2,225
Flagged first, then by citations
8 of the 112 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–103 of 103
Sun, M., Sun, M.-Z., Mi, L., Zhang, J.-W., Li, R., Li, Y., Zhou, H.-L., Yang, W.-J., Wang, D.-F., Zheng, Y.-J., et al. (2026) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2026.06.011
Dynamic, differentiated clinical trajectories and prediction in clinical high risk for psychosis
Xiong, Y., Wu, G., Tang, X., Yang, Y., Zhang, D., Zheng, W., Wei, Y., Xu, L., Cui, H., Liu, H., et al. (2026) · Molecular Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41380-026-03870-3
Introducing Psychosis Screening for a High-Risk Group: U.S. Service Members Exiting Active Duty
Nelson, E. A., Kim, H. H., McCann, A. S., Bowersox, N. W., Szeszko, P. R., Goodrich, D. E., Chan, C., Hazlett, E. A., Corcoran, C. M., & Geraci, J. C. (2026) · Psychiatric Services · doi:10.1176/appi.ps.20260088
Metadata
- Authors
- Salazar de Pablo, G., Catalan, A., & Fusar-Poli, P.
- Affiliations
- Early Psychosis: Interventions and Clinical-detection (EPIC) Lab, Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
- Venue
- JAMA Psychiatry
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2020-03-01
- Volume
- 77
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 311
- ISSN
- 2168-622X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2989821710
- Cited by
- 103
- References
- 112
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 17
- FWCI
- 2.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- kclpure.kcl.ac.uk
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- JAMA Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Fundación Alicia Koplowitz
- European Commission
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
- Keywords
- attenuated psychosis syndrome, DSM-5 diagnostic criteria, clinical validity, concurrent validation, prognostic validation, inter-rater reliability, comorbid depression, suicidality, functional disability, prevalence, psychosis prevention, early intervention, antipsychotic drugs, antipsychotic adverse effects, antipsychotic non-response, antipsychotic non-adherence, antipsychotic tolerability, antipsychotic safety, antipsychotic efficacy
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Prognosis, Psychotic Disorders, Reproducibility of Results, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review