Summary of findings 2. SOCIAL SKILLS versus DISCUSSION CONTROL for schizophrenia.
| SOCIAL SKILLS versus DISCUSSION CONTROL for schizophrenia | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with schizophrenia Settings: Intervention: SOCIAL SKILLS versus DISCUSSION CONTROL | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control | SOCIAL SKILLS versus DISCUSSION CONTROL | |||||
| Social functioning Various scales Follow‐up: 6 months | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | 63 (2 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 | The two RCTs that provided data for this comparison used different scales to measure social functioning and so data were not pooled for this comparison. |
| Relapse Follow‐up: 6 months | 111 per 1000 | 235 per 1000 (49 to 1000) | RR 2.12 (0.44 to 10.1) | 35 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low2,3,4 | |
| Global state GAS Follow‐up: 6 months | The mean Global state: average endpoint score in the intervention groups was 4.5 higher (1.2 lower to 10.2 higher) | 63 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low2,3,5 | |||
|
Mental state: general symptoms Follow‐up: 6 months |
The mean mental state: general symptoms in the intervention groups was 0.22 higher (4.05 lower to 4.49 higher) | 99 (2 studies) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,3,4 | |||
| Quality of life QLS Follow‐up: 6 months | The mean Quality of life: average endpoint score in the intervention groups was 3.7 higher (6.47 lower to 13.87 higher) | 63 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low2,3,5 | |||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (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; | ||||||
| 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. | ||||||
1 Risk of bias: serious. Only one of the RCTs had adequate sequence generation and allocation concealment, neither were blinded nor addressed incomplete data adequately. Only one was free from selective reporting it was unclear if either was free from selective reporting. 2 Imprecision: serious. The 95% confidence intervals are very wide and include both significant benefit and harm of the intervention. 3 Publication bias: strongly suspected. Less than three studies provided data for this outcome. 4 Risk of bias: serious. The RCT that provided data for this outcome was not blinded. It was unclear whether incomplete data were adequately addressed and whether it was free from other biases. 5 Risk of bias: very serious. The RCT that provided data fro this outcome was not blinded, did not adequately address incomplete data and was not free from selective reporting. It was unclear if the sequence generation and allocation concealment was adequate and whether it was free from other biases.