Positive and Negative Syndrome Sample Clauses

Positive and Negative Syndrome. Scale (PANSS) Symptom severity was assessed in a clinical interview using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) (Xxx et al. 1987). The PANSS, a widely adopted and well validated instrument, comprises 30 items corresponding to 30 different symptoms, each with a possible rating ranging from 1 to 7 (1 = Absent, 2 = Minimal, 3 = Mild, 4 = Moderate, 5 = Moderate-Severe, 6 = Severe, 7 = Extreme) (Oord et al. 2006). The scoring was established on the basis of the information obtained during the assessment. Researchers who administered the PANSS underwent specific training, to acquire expertise in administering the interviews, to recognise the minimum amount of information required to make ratings and to score the items with high inter-rate reliability (kappa = 0.8). The PANSS items can be grouped in three categories: “Positive Symptoms” (7 items), “Negative Symptoms” (7 items) and “General Psychopathology” (16 items), with a maximum total score of 210. Cut offs can be introduced to estimate the clinical severity of the presentation. Individuals can be considered mildly ill with a total score of 58, moderately ill with a total score of 75, markedly ill with a total score of 95 and severely ill with a total score of 116 or above (Xxxxxx et al., 2005).

Positive and Negative Syndrome. Scale (PANSS) which included this single depression item raising concerns about co-variance. Studies were also excluded if insufficient statistical information was provided for the paper to be included in the analyses e.g. only associations for change scores presented or authors did not respond to request for additional data (k = 3). XXXXXXXX was examined for reviews with an overlapping research question, none were identified. This review was then registered on the PROSPERO database (ID: CRD42017083440). Relevant studies were identified through the systematic search of the databases Medline, Embase and PsycINFO. These databases were selected to fully capture the range of journals in this field. The following search terms were used as heading or keyword searches: (SCHIZOPHREN* OR SCHIZOAFFECT OR PSYCHOSIS OR PSYCHOTIC) AND (NEGATIVE SYMPTOMS) AND (DEPRESS*). The use of search terms targeting specific depressive or negative symptoms (e.g. anergia, alogia, motivation) were considered but not included as the focus of this review is on the whole range of depressive and negative symptomatology and including individual symptoms may have biased the sample of papers identified. A recent narrative review (Xxxxxxxx et al., 2018) which did include individual symptoms returned a similar number of papers as the current review suggesting this strategy captured all relevant papers. The current review followed the flow of information as suggested by the PRISMA statement (Xxxxx, Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxx, & Xxxxxx, 2009). Following the initial search, duplicate records were removed, and the inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Studies were assessed using an adapted version of the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies (Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxx, Fau, & Xxxxxxx, 2004); see Appendix for rating scale and instructions. The measure was adapted by removing sections C, D and G which were relevant for randomised controlled trials only and therefore not for the studies included in this meta-analysis. One additional item was added which assessed whether the analyses of negative and depressive symptoms was outlined in the design of the study or whether it was the result of secondary analyses. This was felt to be an important quality criterion in this group of studies. All studies were rated by CE and a sample of 10% (k = 6) were rated by an independent assessor. One of these six papers had a discrepancy greater than 2 between raters, this rating was discussed – it was specifically ...