Biomarkers for Psychosis

This umbrella review aims to comprehensively synthesize the evidence of association between peripheral, electrophysiological, neuroimaging, neuropathological, and other biomarkers and diagnosis of psychotic disorders. We selected systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies on diagn...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Fuentes-Claramonte, Paola|||0000-0002-1428-7976, Estradé, Andrés|||0000-0001-6871-5932, Solanes, Aleix|||0000-0002-2491-200X, Ramella-Cravaro, Valentina, Garcia-Leon, Maria Angeles, Diego-Adeliño, Javier de|||0000-0001-9708-2441, Molins, Conrad, Fung, Eric, Valentí, Marc, Anmella, Gerard|||0000-0002-6798-4054, Pomarol-Clotet, Edith|||0000-0002-8159-8563, Oliver, Dominic|||0000-0002-8920-3407, Vieta, Eduard|||0000-0002-0548-0053, Radua, Joaquim|||0000-0003-1240-5438, Fusar-Poli, Paolo|||0000-0003-3582-6788
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Fecha de publicación:2024
País:España
Institución:Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Repositorio:Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB
Idioma:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:ddd.uab.cat:307669
Acceso en línea:https://ddd.uab.cat/record/307669
https://dx.doi.org/urn:doi:10.1093/schizbullopen/sgae018
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Schizophrenia
Psychotic disorders
Peripheral biomarkers
Electrophysiological biomarkers
Neuroimaging biomarkers
Neuropathological biomarkers
Descripción
Sumario:This umbrella review aims to comprehensively synthesize the evidence of association between peripheral, electrophysiological, neuroimaging, neuropathological, and other biomarkers and diagnosis of psychotic disorders. We selected systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies on diagnostic biomarkers for psychotic disorders, published until February 1, 2018. Data extraction was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Evidence of association between biomarkers and psychotic disorders was classified as convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, or non-significant, using a standardized classification. Quality analyses used the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. The umbrella review included 110 meta-analyses or systematic reviews corresponding to 3892 individual studies, 1478 biomarkers, and 392 210 participants. No factor showed a convincing level of evidence. Highly suggestive evidence was observed for transglutaminase autoantibodies levels (odds ratio [OR] = 7.32; 95% CI: 3.36, 15.94), mismatch negativity in auditory event-related potentials (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.5, 0.96), P300 component latency (SMD = -0.6; 95% CI: -0.83, -0.38), ventricle-brain ratio (SMD = 0.61; 95% CI: 0.5, 0.71), and minor physical anomalies (SMD = 0.99; 95% CI: 0.64, 1.34). Suggestive evidence was observed for folate, malondialdehyde, brain-derived neurotrophic factor, homocysteine, P50 sensory gating (P50 S2/S1 ratio), frontal N -acetyl-aspartate, and high-frequency heart rate variability. Among the remaining biomarkers, weak evidence was found for 626 and a non-significant association for 833 factors. While several biomarkers present highly suggestive or suggestive evidence of association with psychotic disorders, methodological biases, and underpowered studies call for future higher-quality research.