Sensitivity of the clinical high-risk and familial high-risk approaches for psychotic disorders - A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background Psychosis prediction has been a key focus of psychiatry research for over 20 years. The two dominant approaches to identifying psychosis risk have been the clinical high-risk (CHR) and the familial high-risk (FHR) approaches. To date, the real-world sensitivity of these approaches - that is, the proportion of all future psychotic disorders in the population that they identify - has not been systematically reviewed. Methods We systematically reviewed and meta-analysed studies in MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, and Web of Science (from inception until September 2024) that reported data on the sensitivity of CHR and FHR approaches - i.e., individuals with a psychosis diagnosis preceded by a CHR diagnosis or a history of parental psychosis (PROSPERO: CRD42024542268). Results We identified four CHR studies and four FHR studies reporting relevant data. The pooled estimate of the sensitivity of the CHR approach was 6.7% (95% CI: 1.5-15.0%) and of the FHR approach was 6.5% (95% CI: 4.4-8.9%). There was a high level of heterogeneity between studies. Most FHR studies had a low risk of bias, but most CHR studies had a high risk of bias. Conclusion Pooled data suggest that CHR and FHR approaches, each, capture only about 6-7% of future psychotic disorders. These findings demonstrate the need for additional approaches to identify risk for psychosis.