Evidence Hub

A systematic review and meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies examining synaptic density in individuals with psychotic spectrum disorders

Husain MO, Jones B, Arshad U, Ameis SH, Mirfallah G, Schifani C, Rodak T, Aiken M et al.

BMC psychiatry, 2024

128 participants · 7 citations

Abstract

Background: Psychotic disorders have long been considered neurodevelopmental disorders where excessive synaptic pruning and cortical volume loss are central to disease pathology. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify neuroimaging studies specifically examining synaptic density across the psychosis spectrum.

Methods: PRISMA guidelines on reporting were followed. We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library from inception to December 8, 2023, and included all original peer-reviewed articles or completed clinical neuroimaging studies of any modality measuring synaptic density in participants with a diagnosis of psychosis spectrum disorder as well as individuals with psychosis-risk states. The NIH quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies was used for the risk of bias assessment.

Results: Five studies (k = 5) met inclusion criteria, comprising n = 128 adults (psychotic disorder; n = 61 and healthy volunteers; n = 67 and specifically measuring synaptic density via positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of the synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2 A (SV2A). Three studies were included in our primary meta-analysis sharing the same outcome measure of SV2A binding, volume of distribution (VT). Regional SV2A VT was reduced in psychotic disorder participants in comparison to healthy volunteers, including the occipital lobe (Mean Difference (MD)= -2.17; 95% CI: -3.36 to -0.98;…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 128 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free