DUP redux: observations vs. experiments in early intervention (Letter to the Editor in reply to Srihari and Li)
Before even the earliest concepts of dementia praecox/schizophrenia, Kesteven (1881) wrote: “To recognise disorder of the mind in its early phases, places it within our reach at the most opportune season for checking or arresting its progress. The first signs of alienation, if duly appreciated, should afford warnings to have recourse, without delay, to the means of cutting it short. The consequences of overlooking or neglecting these timely indications may soon become irreparable … we must surely, in any one or all such cases, look for the accession of mental disorder, hallucinations, illusions, delusions”. Now, more than 140 year later, our field still struggles to verify through contemporary rigour what Kesteven first articulated on the basis of his clinical observations: “Plus ça change …”? We thank Srihari and Li (2022) for their Commentary on our study (Nkire et al., 2022), in which they correctly emphasise the limitations of observational studies in interpreting the statistical relationship between DUP and outcome vis-à-vis rigorous, controlled intervention studies. Several issues are worthy of further consideration.
History
Comments
The original article is available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/Published Citation
Nkire N, Kingston T, Kinsella A, Russell V, Waddington JL. DUP redux: observations vs. experiments in early intervention (Letter to the Editor in reply to Srihari and Li). Schizophr Res. 2023;251:10-11.Publication Date
15 December 2022External DOI
PubMed ID
36527954Department/Unit
- Psychiatry
- School of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences
- Beaumont Hospital
Publisher
ElsevierVersion
- Published Version (Version of Record)