Authors' reply

Abstract

did not follow-up the help-seeking individuals who underwent the clinical assessment at the prodromal services but were not considered at risk for psychosis (HR-). Consequently, it is completely obscure how the authors may have estimated the correct prevalence of false negatives (HR-, who developed psychosis over time) in their analysis. Given all the above concerns, I feel the results of this meta-analysis should be considered carefully as pilot data strongly undermined by significant methodological biases.

Predicting the development of schizophrenia

“…Chuma & Mahadun 1 report on a much needed and topical meta-analysis of prospective studies investigating the predictive validity of prodromal criteria in schizophrenia. The potential importance of early identification and treatment cannot be underestimated.…”