Evidence Hub

Minor Physical Anomalies in Patients with Schizophrenia, Unaffected First-Degree Relatives, and Healthy Controls: A Meta-Analysis

Ting Xu, R. Chan, M. Compton

PLoS ONE, 2011

1,207 participants · 71 citations

Abstract

Background Minor physical anomalies (MPAs) have been found to be more prevalent in schizophrenia than control participants in numerous studies and may index a potential endophenotype for schizophrenia. Aim To quantitatively define the magnitude of the difference in total MPA scores between patients with schizophrenia and healthy controls; to determine the degree of manifestation in unaffected first-degree relatives compared to patients and controls; and to investigate the degree of sensitivity among individual MPA items. Methods A systematic search was conducted on the literature pertaining to MPAs in patients with schizophrenia and unaffected relatives. Effect sizes (Cohen's d and odds ratios) and corresponding confidence intervals were combined using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software package. Results A large difference was found when examining 14 studies comprising 1207 patients with schizophrenia and 1007 healthy controls (d = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.63, 1.27). Six studies involving relatives of individuals with schizophrenia showed a medium effect size (d = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.29,0.62) between patients and relatives, but a small and non-significant effect size (d = 0.32, 95% CI = −0.08, 0.73) between relatives and controls. The majority of MPAs items showed significant odds ratios (1.26–9.86) in comparing patients and controls. Conclusions The findings indicate that medium effect size of MPAs have been demonstrated in patients with schizophrenia as compared to healthy…

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: 1,207 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