Taylor Peter, Hutton Paul, Dudley Robert
Doctorate of Clinical Psychology, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK.
Syst Rev. 2014 May 8;3:44. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-3-44.
The tendency to form conclusions based on limited evidence is known as the 'jumping to conclusions' (JTC) bias, and has been a much studied phenomena in individuals with psychosis. Previous reviews have supported the hypothesis that a JTC bias is particularly linked to the formation and maintenance of delusions. A new systematic review is required as a number of studies have since been published, and older reviews are limited by not systematically assessing methodological quality or the role of study design in influencing effect size estimates. This review aimed to investigate if there is an association between psychosis or delusions and JTC bias.
The current protocol outlines the background and methodology for this systematic review and meta-analysis. Eligible articles will be identified through searches of the electronic databases PsycInfo, PubMed and Medline using relevant search terms, supplemented by hand-searches of references within eligible articles and key review articles within the field. Eligibility criteria were as follows: studies must recruit individuals with: i) schizophrenia spectrum conditions or ii) experiences of delusions. Case-control, cross-sectional, observational and prospective designs will be included but treatment trials and experimental studies excluded. Studies must use the beads task to assess JTC or a conceptually equivalent task. The outcomes will be the average number of 'draws to a decision' in the beads task (or related variant) and the proportion of the sample judged to demonstrate a JTC bias. Literature searches, study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and outcome quality assessment will be undertaken by two independent reviewers. Meta-analyses will be undertaken for continuous (mean number of 'draws to a decision') and binary outcomes (number of people classified as having JTC bias).
Understanding of the size of the JTC effect and the contexts within which it occurs is important both in terms of informing models of delusional thinking and in guiding treatments for those with delusions or psychosis. However, a definitive, up-to-date review and meta-analysis of the JTC bias is currently lacking. The proposed review will fill this gap and resolve key issues regarding the factors which moderate the JTC bias.
CRD42014007603 http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42014007603.
基于有限证据得出结论的倾向被称为“急于下结论”(JTC)偏差,这在患有精神病的个体中是一个被广泛研究的现象。以往的综述支持这样一种假设,即JTC偏差与妄想的形成和维持特别相关。由于此后发表了许多研究,且较旧的综述存在未系统评估方法学质量或研究设计在影响效应大小估计方面的作用的局限性,因此需要进行一项新的系统综述。本综述旨在调查精神病或妄想与JTC偏差之间是否存在关联。
本方案概述了该系统综述和荟萃分析的背景及方法。将通过使用相关检索词在电子数据库PsycInfo、PubMed和Medline中进行检索来识别符合条件的文章,并辅以对符合条件文章中的参考文献以及该领域关键综述文章的手工检索。纳入标准如下:研究必须招募具有以下情况的个体:i)精神分裂症谱系疾病或ii)妄想体验。将纳入病例对照、横断面、观察性和前瞻性设计,但排除治疗试验和实验性研究。研究必须使用珠子任务来评估JTC或概念上等效的任务。结局指标将是珠子任务(或相关变体)中“做出决策前的抽取次数”的平均值以及被判定表现出JTC偏差的样本比例。文献检索、研究选择、数据提取、偏倚风险评估和结局质量评估将由两名独立的评审员进行。将对连续型(“做出决策前的抽取次数”的平均值)和二分类结局(被归类为有JTC偏差的人数)进行荟萃分析。
了解JTC效应的大小及其发生的背景,对于为妄想思维模型提供信息以及指导对患有妄想或精神病的患者的治疗都很重要。然而,目前缺乏对JTC偏差的权威性、最新的综述和荟萃分析。拟议的综述将填补这一空白,并解决有关调节JTC偏差的因素的关键问题。
PROSPERO注册:CRD42014007603 http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42014007603