Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 305

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Intervention in Individuals at Ultra-High Risk for Psychosis: A Review and Future Directions

McGorry, Patrick D., Nelson, Barnaby, Amminger, G. Paul, Bechdolf, Andreas, Francey, Shona M., Berger, Gregor, Riecher-Rössler, Anita, Klosterkötter, Joachim, Ruhrmann, Stephan, Schultze-Lutter, Frauke, Nordentoft, Merete, Hickie, Ian, McGuire, Philip, Berk, Michael, Chen, Eric Y. H., Keshavan, Matcheri S., Yung, Alison R.·2009·The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
DOI 10.4088/jcp.08r04472
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Over the last 15 years, a focus on early intervention in psychotic disorders has emerged. Initially, the early psychosis movement focused on timely recognition and phase-specific treatment of first-episode psychosis. However, early psychosis researchers suspected that pushing the point of intervention even further back to the prodromal phase of psychotic disorders may result in even better outcomes. This article reviews intervention research in the ultra-high-risk phase of psychotic disorders. DATA SOURCES: A literature search of intervention trials with ultra-high-risk cohorts published after 1980 was conducted on PubMed with the search terms prodrome and intervention. STUDY SELECTION: All published intervention trials with ultra-high-risk cohorts. DATA SYNTHESIS: The first generation of intervention trials indicated that both pharmacologic and psychological intervention strategies may be of value in terms of symptom reduction and delay or prevention of onset of threshold psychotic disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Further controlled intervention trials with larger sample sizes are required in order to confirm and extend these findings. We argue that the clinical staging model provides a framework for the rationale and design of such studies, with simpler, safer, and more benign interventions being better candidates for first-line treatment, while more complex and potentially harmful treatments should be reserved for those cases in which response has failed to occur. Recent evidence indicates that neuroprotective agents, such as essential fatty acids, may be a suitable form of intervention for the ultra-high-risk phase of psychotic disorders, with a positive risk-benefit balance. Ethical aspects have become more salient given the recently observed declining transition rate in ultra-high-risk samples. We outline the key questions for the next generation of ultra-high-risk intervention trials.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4088/jcp.08r04472

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 8 references

Cited by

See all 305

Metadata

Authors
McGorry, P. D., Nelson, B., Amminger, G. P., Bechdolf, A., Francey, S. M., Berger, G., Riecher-Rössler, A., Klosterkötter, J., Ruhrmann, S., Schultze-Lutter, F., Nordentoft, M., Hickie, I., McGuire, P., Berk, M., Chen, E. Y. H., Keshavan, M. S., & Yung, A. R.
Venue
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
Publisher
Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc
Published
2009-06-30
Volume
70
Issue
9
Pages
1206-1212
ISSN
0160-6689 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.4088/jcp.08r04472
OpenAlex
W2136758952
Cited by
305
References
8
FWCI
19.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Intervention in Individuals at Ultra-High Risk for Psychosis: A Review and Future Directions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4088/jcp.08r04472
The paper
McGorry, P. D., Nelson, B., Amminger, G. P., Bechdolf, A., Francey, S. M., Berger, G., Riecher-Rössler, A., Klosterkötter, J., Ruhrmann, S., Schultze-Lutter, F., Nordentoft, M., Hickie, I., McGuire, P., Berk, M., Chen, E. Y. H., Keshavan, M. S., & Yung, A. R. (2009). Intervention in Individuals at Ultra-High Risk for Psychosis: A Review and Future Directions. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.4088/jcp.08r04472

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.