Department of Personality, Assessment and Psychological Treatment, University of Malaga, Málaga, Spain.
Biomedical Research Institute of Malaga (IBIMA), Andalusian Group of Psychosocial Research, Maristán Network, Málaga, Spain.
PLoS One. 2018 Apr 12;13(4):e0195687. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195687. eCollection 2018.
The purpose of this study is to provide an updated systematic review to identify studies describing the prevalence of psychosis in order to explore methodological factors that could account for the variation in prevalence estimates.
Studies with original data related to the prevalence of psychosis (published between 1990 and 2015) were identified via searching electronic databases and reviewing manual citations. Prevalence estimates were sorted according to prevalence type (point, 12-months and lifetime). The independent association between key methodological variables and the mean effect of prevalence was examined (prevalence type, case-finding setting, method of confirming diagnosis, international classification of diseases, diagnosis category, and study quality) by meta-analytical techniques and random-effects meta-regression.
Seventy-three primary studies were included, providing a total of 101 estimates of prevalence rates of psychosis. Across these studies, the pooled median point and 12-month prevalence for persons was 3.89 and 4.03 per 1000 respectively; and the median lifetime prevalence was 7.49 per 1000. The result of the random-effects meta-regression analysis revealed a significant effect for the prevalence type, with higher rates of lifetime prevalence than 12-month prevalence (p<0.001). Studies conducted in the general population presented higher prevalence rates than those carried out in populations attended in health/social services (p = 0.006). Compared to the diagnosis of schizophrenia only, prevalence rates were higher in the probable psychotic disorder (p = 0.022) and non-affective psychosis (p = 0.009). Finally, a higher study quality is associated with a lower estimated prevalence of psychotic disorders (p<0.001).
This systematic review provides a comprehensive comparison of methodologies used in studies of the prevalence of psychosis, which can provide insightful information for future epidemiological studies in adopting the most relevant methodological approach.
本研究旨在提供一项更新的系统评价,以确定描述精神病患病率的研究,从而探讨可能导致患病率估计值差异的方法学因素。
通过检索电子数据库和查阅手工引文,确定了与精神病患病率(发表于 1990 年至 2015 年之间)相关的原始数据研究。根据患病率类型(点、12 个月和终身)对患病率估计值进行分类。通过荟萃分析技术和随机效应荟萃回归,检查了关键方法学变量与患病率平均值之间的独立关联(患病率类型、病例发现环境、诊断确认方法、国际疾病分类、诊断类别和研究质量)。
共纳入 73 项原始研究,提供了 101 项精神病患病率的估计值。在这些研究中,人群的 pooled 中位数点和 12 个月患病率分别为 3.89 和 4.03/1000;中位数终身患病率为 7.49/1000。随机效应荟萃回归分析的结果表明,患病率类型具有显著影响,终身患病率高于 12 个月患病率(p<0.001)。在一般人群中进行的研究呈现出比在卫生/社会服务机构就诊人群中更高的患病率(p = 0.006)。与仅诊断为精神分裂症相比,可能的精神病障碍(p = 0.022)和非情感性精神病(p = 0.009)的患病率更高。最后,研究质量越高,估计的精神病患病率越低(p<0.001)。
本系统评价全面比较了精神病患病率研究中使用的方法学,为未来采用最相关方法学方法的流行病学研究提供了有价值的信息。