The effects of antipsychotic discontinuation or maintenance on the process of recovery in remitted first-episode psychosis patients – A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of antipsychotic treatment following remission of first-episode psychosis (FEP) is uncertain, considering potential adverse effects and individual variability in relapse rates. This study aimed to investigate the effect of antipsychotic discontinuation compared to continuation on recovery in remitted FEP patients. METHODS: CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, and PsycINFO databases were searched on November 2, 2023, with no language restrictions. RCTs evaluating antipsychotic discontinuation in remitted FEP patients were selected. The primary outcome was personal recovery, and secondary outcomes included functional recovery, global functioning, hospital admission, symptom severity, quality of life, side effects, and employment. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated with GRADE. Meta-analysis used a random-effect model with an inverse-variance approach. RESULTS: = 0%; n = 128), although evidence certainty was very low. No significant differences were found in hospital admission, symptom severity, quality of life, global functioning, or employment between the discontinuation and continuation groups. CONCLUSIONS: Personal recovery was not reported in any antipsychotic discontinuation trial in remitted FEP. The observed positive effect of discontinuation on functional recovery came from an early terminated trial and an RCT followed by an uncontrolled period. These findings should be interpreted cautiously due to very low certainty of evidence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.027 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".