{rfName}
Ca

Indexed in

License and use

Icono OpenAccess

Altmetrics

Analysis of institutional authors

Mata Iturralde, LauraAuthorLopez-Moriñigo JdAuthorBaca-Garcia EAuthor

Share

January 21, 2021
Publications
>
Review

Can metacognitive interventions improve insight in schizophrenia spectrum disorders? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Publicated to:PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDICINE. 50 (14): 2289-2301 - 2020-10-01 50(14), DOI: 10.1017/S0033291720003384

Authors: Lopez-Morinigo JD; Ajnakina O; Martínez ASE; Escobedo-Aedo PJ; Ruiz-Ruano VG; Sánchez-Alonso S; Mata-Iturralde L; Muñoz-Lorenzo L; Ochoa S; Baca-Garciá E; David AS

Affiliations

CIBERSAM - Author
Hospital Universitario Fundacion Jimenez Diaz - Author
King's College London - Author
Parc Sanitari Sant Joan de Deu - Author
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid - Author
Universidad Catolica del Maule - Author
University College London - Author
See more

Abstract

Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press. Background Patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD) tend to lack insight, which is linked to poor outcomes. The effect size of previous treatments on insight changes in SSD has been small. Metacognitive interventions may improve insight in SSD, although this remains unproved. Methods We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the effects of metacognitive interventions designed for SSD, namely Metacognitive Training (MCT) and Metacognitive Reflection and Insight Therapy (MERIT), on changes in cognitive and clinical insight at post-treatment and at follow-up. Results Twelve RCTs, including 10 MCT RCTs (n = 717 participants) and two MERIT trials (n = 90), were selected, totalling N = 807 participants. Regarding cognitive insight six RCTs (n = 443) highlighted a medium effect of MCT on self-reflectiveness at post-treatment, d = 0.46, p < 0.01, and at follow-up, d = 0.30, p < 0.01. There was a small effect of MCT on self-certainty at post-treatment, d = -0.23, p = 0.03, but not at follow-up. MCT was superior to controls on an overall Composite Index of cognitive insight at post-treatment, d = 1.11, p < 0.01, and at follow-up, d = 0.86, p = 0.03, although we found evidence of heterogeneity. Of five MCT trials on clinical insight (n = 244 participants), which could not be meta-analysed, four of them favoured MCT compared v. control. The two MERIT trials reported conflicting results. Conclusions Metacognitive interventions, particularly Metacognitive Training, appear to improve insight in patients with SSD, especially cognitive insight shortly after treatment. Further long-term RCTs are needed to establish whether these metacognitive interventions-related insight changes are sustained over a longer time period and result in better outcomes.

Keywords

insightmetacognitive interventionsoutcomesInsightMetacognitive interventionsOutcomesSchizophrenia spectrum disorders

Quality index

Bibliometric impact. Analysis of the contribution and dissemination channel

The work has been published in the journal PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDICINE due to its progression and the good impact it has achieved in recent years, according to the agency WoS (JCR), it has become a reference in its field. In the year of publication of the work, 2020, it was in position 3/130, thus managing to position itself as a Q1 (Primer Cuartil), in the category Psychology, Clinical. Notably, the journal is positioned above the 90th percentile.

From a relative perspective, and based on the normalized impact indicator calculated from World Citations provided by WoS (ESI, Clarivate), it yields a value for the citation normalization relative to the expected citation rate of: 1.79. This indicates that, compared to works in the same discipline and in the same year of publication, it ranks as a work cited above average. (source consulted: ESI Nov 14, 2024)

This information is reinforced by other indicators of the same type, which, although dynamic over time and dependent on the set of average global citations at the time of their calculation, consistently position the work at some point among the top 50% most cited in its field:

  • Weighted Average of Normalized Impact by the Scopus agency: 3.24 (source consulted: FECYT Feb 2024)
  • Field Citation Ratio (FCR) from Dimensions: 11.44 (source consulted: Dimensions Jul 2025)

Specifically, and according to different indexing agencies, this work has accumulated citations as of 2025-07-18, the following number of citations:

  • WoS: 27
  • Scopus: 46
  • Europe PMC: 12

Impact and social visibility

From the perspective of influence or social adoption, and based on metrics associated with mentions and interactions provided by agencies specializing in calculating the so-called "Alternative or Social Metrics," we can highlight as of 2025-07-18:

  • The use, from an academic perspective evidenced by the Altmetric agency indicator referring to aggregations made by the personal bibliographic manager Mendeley, gives us a total of: 132.
  • The use of this contribution in bookmarks, code forks, additions to favorite lists for recurrent reading, as well as general views, indicates that someone is using the publication as a basis for their current work. This may be a notable indicator of future more formal and academic citations. This claim is supported by the result of the "Capture" indicator, which yields a total of: 138 (PlumX).

With a more dissemination-oriented intent and targeting more general audiences, we can observe other more global scores such as:

  • The Total Score from Altmetric: 9.75.
  • The number of mentions on the social network X (formerly Twitter): 6 (Altmetric).

It is essential to present evidence supporting full alignment with institutional principles and guidelines on Open Science and the Conservation and Dissemination of Intellectual Heritage. A clear example of this is:

  • The work has been submitted to a journal whose editorial policy allows open Open Access publication.

Leadership analysis of institutional authors

This work has been carried out with international collaboration, specifically with researchers from: Chile; Gran Bretanya; United Kingdom.

There is a significant leadership presence as some of the institution’s authors appear as the first or last signer, detailed as follows: First Author (LOPEZ MORIÑIGO, JAVIER DAVID) .