Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

Contents:

Information:

  • Access

Actions:

      • Send article to Kindle

        To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

        Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

        Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

        Authors' reply
        Available formats
        ×

        Send article to Dropbox

        To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

        Authors' reply
        Available formats
        ×

        Send article to Google Drive

        To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

        Authors' reply
        Available formats
        ×
Export citation

Following the letter by Castle, we confirm an error in the secondary outcomes reported in Fig. 2(b) of our manuscript. We have now corrected it, and repeated the literature search by adopting an additional search criterion. We have directly contacted the leading authors of the largest clinical high-risk studies conducted in the past decade to seek additional quality of life (QoL) comparisons between high-risk patients and those with first-episode psychosis. We have then repeated the meta-analysis (see Fig. 1 below), which now included 238 patients at high risk compared with 205 patients with psychosis. The final results were unchanged as compared to those reported in our original analysis. 1 There is no meta-analytical difference between the subjective QoL of patients at high risk of psychosis and those with frank psychosis (Hedges' g= 0.211, 95% CI −0.148 to 0.571, P = 0.249; Q = 9.518, d.f. = 3, I 2 = 68.48, P = 0.023). This secondary meta-analytical comparison is based on a few studies only. However, should new studies become available in the near future, and eventually show a better subjective QoL in clinical high-risk patients as compared with controls, the core finding of our analysis would still remain unchanged. Indeed, our primary aim was to show that patients clinically at high risk for psychosis have significant impairments in functioning and QoL when compared with healthy controls: patients with psychosis were used as a benchmark group for comparative purposes only.

Fig. 1 Meta-analytical comparison of quality of life between patients at high clinical risk for psychosis and patients diagnosed with frank psychosis (Comparisons).

HR, high risk; MSQoL, Modular System for Quality of Life; QLS, Quality of Life Scale; QLS-role, role functioning subscale of the Quality of Life Scale; WHOQOL-BREF, abbreviated version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment.

1 Fusar-Poli, P, Rocchetti, M, Sardella, A, Avila, A, Brandizzi, M, Caverzasi, E, et al. Disorder, not just state of risk: meta-analysis of functioning and quality of life in people at high risk of psychosis. Br J Psychiatry 2015; 207: 198206.
2 Addington, J, Penn, D, Woods, SW, Addington, D, Perkins, DO. Social functioning in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis. Schizophr Res 2008; 99: 119–24.
3 Bechdolf, A, Pukrop, R, Kohn, D, Tschinkel, S, Veith, V, Schultze-Lutter, F, et al. Subjective quality of life in subjects at risk for a first episode of psychosis: a comparison with first episode schizophrenia patients and healthy controls. Schizophr Res 2005; 79: 137–43.
4 Francey, SM, Jackson, HJ, Phillips, LJ, Wood, SJ, Yung, AR, McGorry, PD. Sustained attention in young people at high risk of psychosis does not predict transition to psychosis. Schizophr Res 2005; 79: 127–36.
5 Koike, S, Takano, Y, Iwashiro, N, Satomura, Y, Suga, M, Nagai, T, et al. A multimodal approach to investigate biomarkers for psychosis in a clinical setting: the integrative neuroimaging studies in schizophrenia targeting for early intervention and prevention (IN-STEP) project. Schizophr Res 2013; 143: 116–24.