Mindfulness-based interventions for non-affective psychosis: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis

Figures & data

Figure 1. Literature search strategy (PRISMA flow diagram).

Figure 2. Cochrane risk of bias ratings (RoB 2.0).

Table 1. Cochrane risk of bias ratings (RoB 2.0).

Study	Randomization process	Deviations from intended interventions	Missing outcome data	Measurement of the outcome	Selection of the reported results	Manualized treatment protocols	ITT principles	Overall bias
Behere et al. (2011)	Low	High	High	Low	Low	Yes	NR	High
Budak and Yilmaz (2019)	Some concerns	Some concerns	High	High	Low	Yes	NR	High
Caponnetto et al. (2019)	Low	Some concerns	Low	High	Low	Yes	NR	Some concerns
Chadwick et al. (2009)	Low	High	High	High	Low	Yes	No	High
Chadwick et al. (2016)	Low	Some concerns	Low	Low	Low	Yes	Yes	Some concerns
Chien et al. (2017)	Low	Some concerns	Low	Low	Low	Yes	Yes	Some concerns
Chien et al. (2019)	Low	Some concerns	Low	Low	Low	Yes	Yes	Some concerns
Davis et al. (2015)	Low	Some concerns	High	High	Low	Yes	No	High
Duraiswamy et al. (2007)	Low	High	High	Low	Low	Yes	NR	High
Gumley et al. (2017)	Low	Some concerns	Low	Low	Low	Yes	Yes	Some concerns
Huang et al. (2017)	Low	Some concerns	Low	High	Low	Yes	NR	High
Ikai et al. (2013)	Low	Some concerns	Low	Low	Low	Yes	Yes	Some concerns
Ikai et al. (2014)	Low	Some concerns	Low	Low	Low	Yes	NR	Some concerns
Ikai et al. (2017)	Low	Some concerns	Low	Low	Low	Yes	Yes	Some concerns
Lam et al. (2020)	Low	Some concerns	Low	Low	Low	Yes	Yes	Some concerns
Langer et al. (2012)	Low	High	High	Low	Low	Yes	NR	High
Lee (2019)	Low	Some concerns	Low	High	Low	Yes	Yes	High
Lin et al. (2015)	Low	Some concerns	Low	Low	Low	Unclear	Yes	Some concerns
Lopez-Navarro et al. (2015)	Low	Some concerns	Low	Low	Low	Yes	Yes	Some concerns
Lopez-Navarro et al. (2020)	Low	Some concerns	Low	Low	Low	Yes	Yes	Some concerns
MacDougall et al. (2018)	Low	High	Low	Low	Low	Yes	No	High
Manjunath et al. (2013)	Low	High	High	Low	Low	Yes	No	High
Paikkatt et al. (2015)	Low	Some concerns	High	High	Low	Yes	NR	High
Shawyer et al. (2012)	Low	Some concerns	Low	Low	Low	Yes	No	Some concerns
Shawyer et al. (2017)	Low	Some concerns	Low	Low	Low	Yes	Yes	Some concerns
Spidel et al. (2018)	Low	High	Low	High	Low	Yes	NR	High
Varambally et al. (2012)	Low	High	High	Low	Low	Yes	No	High
Visceglia and Lewis (2011)	Low	Some concerns	Low	High	Low	Unclear	NR	High
Wang (2018)	Low	Some concerns	Low	Low	Low	Yes	NR	Some concerns
White et al. (2011)	Low	Some concerns	Low	Low	Low	Yes	NR	Some concerns
Yang and Zhu (2019)	Low	Some concerns	Low	High	Low	Yes	NR	High

Figure 3. Funnel plots. (a) Psychotic symptoms. Eggar test—test for funnel plot asymmetry: z = 1.0731, p = .2832. (b) Affective symptoms. Eggar test—test for funnel plot asymmetry: z = −0.8428, p = .3993. (c) Quality of life. Eggar test—test for funnel plot asymmetry: z = −0.1727, p = .8629.

Table 2. Percentage PANSS-derived responder rate for at least 25 and 50% PANSS reduction from baseline.

	25% PANSS reduction						50% PANSS reduction
	Experimental				Control		Experimental				Control
	N	No of responders	Response rate	N	No of responders	Response rate	N	No of responders	Response rate	N	No of responders	Response rate
Behere et al. (2011)	27	10	(37.0)	22	6	(27.3)	27	2	(7.4)	22	1	(4.5)
Chien et al. (2017)	111	74	(66.7)	112	7	(6.3)	111	14	(12.6)	112	1	(0.9)
Chien et al. (2019)	56	55	(98.2)	56	1	(1.8)	56	30	(53.6)	56	0	(0.0)
Duraiswamy et al. (2007)	21	17	(81.0)	20	11	(55.0)	21	12	(57.1)	20	7	(35.0)
Ikai et al. (2013)	25	7	(28.0)	24	6	(25.0)	25	2	(8.0)	24	2	(8.3)
Ikai et al. (2014)	25	6	(24.0)	25	7	(28.0)	25	2	(8.0)	25	4	(16.0)
Ikai et al. (2017)	24	6	(25.0)	25	8	(32.0)	24	1	(4.2)	25	3	(12.0)
Lee (2019)	20	4	(20.0)	30	4	(13.3)	20	1	(5.0)	30	1	(3.3)
Lin et al. (2015)	39	17	(43.6)	18	6	(33.3)	39	12	(30.8)	18	4	(22.2)
Lopez-Navarro et al. (2015)	22	6	(27.3)	22	5	(22.7)	22	1	(4.5)	22	2	(9.1)
Lopez-Navarro et al. (2020)	26	12	(46.2)	26	9	(34.6)	26	6	(23.1)	26	4	(15.4)
Manjunath et al. (2013)	35	34	(97.1)	25	23	(92.0)	35	25	(71.4)	25	13	(52.0)
Paikkatt et al. (2015)	15	15	(100.0)	15	14	(93.3)	15	15	(100.0)	15	10	(66.7)
Shawyer et al. (2012)	18	8	(44.4)	18	7	(38.9)	18	3	(16.7)	18	3	(16.7)
Shawyer et al. (2017)	41	15	(36.6)	36	11	(30.6)	41	5	(12.2)	36	4	(11.1)
Varambally et al. (2012)	39	29	(74.4)	34	15	(44.1)	39	12	(30.8)	34	10	(29.4)
Visceglia and Lewis (2011)	10	8	(80.0)	8	1	(12.5)	10	4	(40.0)	8	0	(0.0)
White et al. (2011)	14	6	(42.9)	10	2	(20.0)	14	1	(7.1)	10	0	(0.0)
Overall	568	329	(57.9)	526	143	(27.2)	568	148	(26.1)	526	69	(13.1)
Odd ratio	2.87 [1.45, 5.68]						1.84 [1.06, 3.20]

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.