Abstract
Background Metacognitive deficits are well documented in schizophrenia spectrum disorders as a decreased capacity to adjust confidence to first-order performance in a cognitive task. Because metacognitive ability directly depends on first-order performance, observed metacognitive deficits might be driven by lower first-order performance. We aimed to determine the extent to which individuals with schizophrenia experience specific deficits when producing confidence judgments and examined whether studies controlling for first-order performance found metacognitive deficits of smaller magnitude.
Method Electronic databases were searched for studies published until April 24th 2020. We conducted a Bayesian meta-analysis of 43 studies comparing the calibration of confidence in 1458 individuals with schizophrenia compared to 1337 matched controls. Group analyses and meta-regressions quantified how metacognitive deficits depended on task performance, cognitive domains, clinical severity, and antipsychotic dosage.
Outcomes We found a global metacognitive deficit in schizophrenia (g = -0.57, 95% CrI [-0.71, -0.43]), which was driven by studies which did not equate first-order performance between groups (g = -0.64, 95% CrI [-0.77, -0.51]), and inconclusive among controlled-studies (g = -0.28, 95% CrI [-0.63, 0.07], BF01 = 1.3). Plus, the metacognitive deficit in non-controlled studies was correlated with first-order performance. No correlation was found between metacognitive deficit and clinical features of schizophrenia.
Interpretation We provide evidence for the existence of a deficit in the calibration of confidence judgments in schizophrenia, which is inflated due to non-equated first-order performance. Thus, efforts should be made to develop experimental protocols accounting for lower first-order performance in schizophrenia.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
prospero CRD42020188614
Clinical Protocols
Funding Statement
NF has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant agreement No. 803122).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This meta-analysis followed the PRISMA recommendations (Moher et al., 2009). The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020188614) on May 26th 2020, before data extraction. Inclusion criteria followed the PICO framework.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Data availability statement: bibliographic data and analyses scripts are publicly available: https://gitlab.com/nfaivre/meta_analysis_scz_public
Data Availability
bibliographic data and analyses scripts are publicly available.
