Summary of findings 11. Group C other: cognitive training compared to active control (tablet games) for prodromal stage of psychosis.

Cognitive training compared to active control (tablet games) for prodromal stage of psychosis
Patient or population: people in the prodromal stage of psychosis Setting: outpatient Intervention: cognitive training Comparison: active control (tablet games)
Outcomes	Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	№ of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Risk with active control (tablet games)	Risk with cognitive training
Prodromal symptoms: transition to psychosis	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	0 (0)	See comment	No study reported this outcome
Global state: clinically important change in global state	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	0 (0)	See comment	No study reported this outcome
Mental state: psychosis risk symptoms SOPS total (higher score = worse, scale from: 0‐114) Follow‐up: 24 months	The mean mental state: psychosis risk symptoms was 25.49 points	The mean mental state: psychosis risk symptoms was 33.9 points See comment	‐	62 (1 RCT)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very low1,2	Data for this outcome were skewed, and therefore we did not present summary estimates
Behaviour: clinically important change in behaviour	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	0 (0)	See comment	No study reported this outcome
Adverse effects: at least one serious adverse event	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	0 (0)	See comment	No study reported this outcome
Quality of life: clinically important change in quality of life	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	0 (0)	See comment	No study reported this outcome
Satisfaction with treatment: leaving the study early Endpoint data (events) Long‐term Follow‐up: by 24 months	Study population		RR 0.78 (0.48 to 1.29)	83 (1 RCT)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very low1,2
	485 per 1000	378 per 1000 (233 to 625)
*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) 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; SOPS: Scale of Prodromal Symptoms
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.

¹Risk of bias: rated 'very serious'; randomisation method not described, allocation concealment method not described, high attrition.
 ²Imprecision: rated 'very serious'; evidence from one small study.