A Metacognitive Training for Schizophrenia patients (MCT) was developed to target the cognitive biases that characterize the illness. Results suggest positive MCT effects encompassing several aspects of psychopathology and subjective well-being. There are still open questions concerning the effect on different cognitive biases and the interplay between them and both psychopathology and neurocognition. Specifically, the bias against disconfirmatory evidence (BADE) has never been tested in previous trials on MCT. In this study we evaluated the feasibility of MCT combined with a cognitive remediation therapy (CACR) in schizophrenia and its effect on BADE. Moreover, we investigated the relationships between BADE and both neuropsychology and psychopathology, taking into account mutual influences on the degree of improvement.

Fifty-seven schizophrenia outpatients were randomly assigned to CACR + control group or MCT+CACR and assessed at baseline and after treatment for psychopathology, neurocognition and BADE.

After MCT+CACR patients showed significantly greater improvements on BADE. Although BADE baseline performances correlated with several cognitive domains, no association was found between BADE improvement and neurocognitive nor psychopathological measures.

This study enlightened for the first time the efficacy of MCT+CACR on BADE in schizophrenia, suggesting the importance to develop a more specific intervention tailored on individual needs of patients.

Aims were to assess the efficacy of metacognitive training (MCT) in people with a recent onset of psychosis in terms of symptoms as a primary outcome and metacognitive variables as a secondary outcome.

A multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial was performed. A total of 126 patients were randomized to an MCT or a psycho-educational intervention with cognitive-behavioral elements. The sample was composed of people with a recent onset of psychosis, recruited from nine public centers in Spain. The treatment consisted of eight weekly sessions for both groups. Patients were assessed at three time-points: baseline, post-treatment, and at 6 months follow-up. The evaluator was blinded to the condition of the patient. Symptoms were assessed with the PANSS and metacognition was assessed with a battery of questionnaires of cognitive biases and social cognition.

Both MCT and psycho-educational groups had improved symptoms post-treatment and at follow-up, with greater improvements in the MCT group. The MCT group was superior to the psycho-educational group on the Beck Cognitive Insight Scale (BCIS) total (p = 0.026) and self-certainty (p = 0.035) and dependence self-subscale of irrational beliefs, comparing baseline and post-treatment. Moreover, comparing baseline and follow-up, the MCT group was better than the psycho-educational group in self-reflectiveness on the BCIS (p = 0.047), total BCIS (p = 0.045), and intolerance to frustration (p = 0.014). Jumping to Conclusions (JTC) improved more in the MCT group than the psycho-educational group (p = 0.021). Regarding the comparison within each group, Theory of Mind (ToM), Personalizing Bias, and other subscales of irrational beliefs improved in the MCT group but not the psycho-educational group (p < 0.001–0.032).

MCT could be an effective psychological intervention for people with recent onset of psychosis in order to improve cognitive insight, JTC, and tolerance to frustration. It seems that MCT could be useful to improve symptoms, ToM, and personalizing bias.

Metacognitive training (MCT) for schizophrenia spectrum is widely implemented. It is timely to systematically review the literature and to conduct a meta-analysis.

Eligible studies were selected from several sources (databases and expert suggestions). Criteria included comparative studies with a MCT condition measuring positive symptoms and/or delusions and/or data-gathering bias. Three meta-analyses were conducted on data gathering (three studies; 219 participants), delusions (seven studies; 500 participants) and positive symptoms (nine studies; 436 participants). Hedges’ g is reported as the effect size of interest. Statistical power was sufficient to detect small to moderate effects.

All analyses yielded small non-significant effect sizes (0.26 for positive symptoms; 0.22 for delusions; 0.31 for data-gathering bias). Corrections for publication bias further reduced the effect sizes to 0.21 for positive symptoms and to 0.03 for delusions. In blinded studies, the corrected effect sizes were 0.22 for positive symptoms and 0.03 for delusions. In studies using proper intention-to-treat statistics the effect sizes were 0.10 for positive symptoms and −0.02 for delusions. The moderate to high heterogeneity in most analyses suggests that processes other than MCT alone have an impact on the results.

The studies so far do not support a positive effect for MCT on positive symptoms, delusions and data gathering. The methodology of most studies was poor and sensitivity analyses to control for methodological flaws reduced the effect sizes considerably. More rigorous research would be helpful in order to create enough statistical power to detect small effect sizes and to reduce heterogeneity. Limitations and strengths are discussed.