Summary of findings 3. STRUCTURAL GROUP THERAPY (SGT) + TAU compared to HANDICRAFT GROUP (HC) + TAU (all short‐term) for psychosis in adolescents.
| STRUCTURAL GROUP THERAPY + TREATMENT‐AS‐USUAL compared to HANDICRAFT GROUP + TREATMENT‐AS‐USUAL (all short‐term) for psychosis in adolescents | ||||||
| Patient or population: Adolescents with psychosis Setting: Inpatient Intervention: STRUCTURAL GROUP THERAPY + USUAL MEDICATION (SGT + TAU) Comparison: HANDICRAFT GROUP + USUAL MEDICATION (HC + TAU) | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with HANDICRAFT GROUP + TREATMENT‐AS‐USUAL (TAU) | Risk with STRUCTURAL GROUP THERAPY + TRAETMENT‐AS‐USUAL (SGT + TAU) | |||||
|
Global State: Not reported |
See comment | See comment | Not estimable | ‐ | See comment | No studies reported data on global state. |
|
Mental State: Mean endpoint total score on PANSS (high score = poor) |
The mean endpoint PANSS score in the control group was 55.61 + 3.5 |
The mean endpoint PANSS score in the intervention group was 2.57 lower (4.47 lower to 0.67 lower) |
‐ | 48 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very Low 1, 2 | |
| Cognitive functioning: Attaining normal cognitive functioning ‐ Not reported | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | ‐ | See comment | No studies reported data on mental state. |
|
Global functioning: Not reported |
See comment | See comment | Not estimable | ‐ | See comment | No studies reported data on global functioning. |
|
Adverse events: Not reported |
See comment | See comment | Not estimable | ‐ | See comment | No studies reported data on adverse events. |
|
Service Utilisation: Not reported |
See comment | See comment | Not estimable | ‐ | See comment | No studies reported data on service utilisation. |
| Leaving the study early: For any reason | Study population | RR 0.71 (0.25 to 2.00) | 60 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low 1, 3 | ||
| 233 per 1,000 | 166 per 1,000 (58 to 467) | |||||
| *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; OR: Odds ratio; | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect | ||||||
1 Downgraded by one level (significant number but fewer than 50% of participants were lost to follow‐up over the course of the trial. No mention of intention‐to‐treat analysis was found in the paper).
2 Downgraded by one level (binary outcome was unavailable. We therefore used continuous scores on PANSS (mental state) as an alternative indicator).
3 Downgraded by one level (data obtained from only one trial that had a small sample size).