Models to predict relapse in psychosis: A systematic review

PLoS One. 2017 Sep 21;12(9):e0183998. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183998. eCollection 2017.

Abstract

Background: There is little evidence on the accuracy of psychosis relapse prediction models. Our objective was to undertake a systematic review of relapse prediction models in psychosis.

Method: We conducted a literature search including studies that developed and/or validated psychosis relapse prediction models, with or without external model validation. Models had to target people with psychosis and predict relapse. The key databases searched were; Embase, Medline, Medline In-Process Citations & Daily Update, PsychINFO, BIOSIS Citation Index, CINAHL, and Science Citation Index, from inception to September 2016. Prediction modelling studies were assessed for risk of bias and applicability using the PROBAST tool.

Results: There were two eligible studies, which included 33,088 participants. One developed a model using prodromal symptoms and illness-related variables, which explained 14% of relapse variance but was at high risk of bias. The second developed a model using administrative data which was moderately discriminative (C = 0.631) and associated with relapse (OR 1.11 95% CI 1.10, 1.12) and achieved moderately discriminative capacity when validated (C = 0.630). The risk of bias was low.

Conclusions: Due to a lack of high quality evidence it is not possible to make any specific recommendations about the predictors that should be included in a prognostic model for relapse. For instance, it is unclear whether prodromal symptoms are useful for predicting relapse. The use of routine data to develop prediction models may be a more promising approach, although we could not empirically compare the two included studies.

Publication types

  • Review
  • Systematic Review

MeSH terms

  • Computational Biology
  • Humans
  • Models, Statistical*
  • Prognosis
  • Psychotic Disorders / diagnosis*
  • Recurrence

Grants and funding

The research is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West (CLAHRC West) at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and Otsuka Health Solutions Ltd. Otsuka Health Solutions Ltd commissioned this review. The refinement of the research question was the result of a consensus between NIHR CLAHRC West and Otsuka Health Solutions Ltd. Otsuka Health Solutions Ltd did not influence the study design, data collection, analysis or decision to publish. Ms Caroline Gadd is a co-author of this paper and therefore has commented on drafts of the paper and therefore has had a role in the preparation of this manuscript.