Skip to main content
. 2012 Dec 17;39(1):17–21. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbs131

Table 1.

Summary of Findings Table

Nidotherapy-enhanced Standard Care compared with Standard Care for people with schizophrenia
Patient or Population: Patients with People with Schizophrenia Settings: Intervention: Nidotherapy-enhanced Standard Care Comparison: Standard Care
Illustrative comparative risksa (95% CI)
Assumed risk Corresponding risk
Outcomes Standard Care Nidotherapy-enhanced Standard Care –Relative effect (95% CI) No. of participants (studies) Quality of the evidence (GRADE) Comments
Functioning—specific— social—change in average score—medium term (6–12 months) Social Functioning Questionnaire—Key Worker (SFQ-KW). Scale: from 0 to 24. Follow-up: 12 months The mean functioning—specific—social—change in average score—medium term (6–12 months) in the control groups was 13.2 points The mean functioning—specific—social—change in average score—medium term (6–12 months) in the intervention groups was 1.70 lower (from 4.6 lower to 1.2 higher) 37 (1 study) ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very lowb,c,dc
Functioning—general—no important change—medium term (6–12 months)—not measured See comment See comment Not estimable See comment No study reported this outcome
Mental state—no important change—medium term (6–12 months) Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). Scale: from 0 to 96. Follow-up: 12 months The mean mental state - no important change—medium term (6–12 months) in the control groups was 0 The mean mental state—no important change—medium term (6–12 months) in the intervention groups was 0 higher (from 0 to 0 higher) 37 (1 study) ⊕⊕⊝⊝ lowc,e Highly skewed data—mental state average scores reported in “Data and Analysis”—short term (<6 months) medium term (6–12 months)
Quality of life—no important change—medium term (6–12 months)—not measured See comment See comment Not estimable See comment No study reported this outcome
Satisfaction with treatment See comment See comment Not estimable 0 (0) See comment No study reported this outcome
Economic outcomes—total costs (12 months) NHS Reference Costs and unit costs Follow-up: 12 months The mean economic outcomes—total costs (12 months) in the control groups was 0 The mean economic outcomes—total costs (12 months) in the intervention groups was 0 higher (from 0 to 0 higher) 48 (1 study) ⊕⊕⊝⊝ lowc,f Highly skewed data—economic outcomes over 12 months reported in “Data and Analysis”—direct costs; indirect costs; total costs
Adverse effects—specific—death Number of individual deaths of participants Follow-up: 12 months 42 per 1000 12 per 1000 (from 0 to 281) RR 0.29 (from 0.01 to 6.74) 52 (1 study) ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very lowc,,g,h

Note: GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

aThe basis for the assumed risk (eg, the median control group risk across studies) is provided. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI, Confidence interval; RR, Risk ratio.

bRisk of bias: rated “serious”—co-author of study developed the SFQ scale, unclear if validated.

cImprecision: rated “serious”—only one study reported results on this outcome.

dPublication bias: rated “strongly suspected”—SFQ patient version results mentioned but not reported.

eImprecision: rated “very serious”—highly skewed data.

fIndirectness: rated “serious”—all costs presented as an average, with wide scatter of costs in both intervention and control groups.

gRisk of bias: rated “serious”—only one death recorded from control group—cause of death unknown; “homicide was suspected but no-one was charged.”

hInconsistency: rated “very serious”—small sample size with one death; unknown facts/causes leading to death.