Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: Impaired social cognition (SC) occurs frequently in schizophrenia (SCZ), yet compared to autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the research on SC in SCZ is sparse and methodologically heterogeneous. To accurately assess between-group SC differences it is further necessary to establish the relationship between nonsocial cognition (NSC) and SC, particularly as this may not be identical across disorders.
UNASSIGNED: The present study aimed to map, index and assess the quality of research published between 2014-2021 investigating SC in SCZ, and to summarize existing limitations and recommendations for future research.
UNASSIGNED: Following the PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) fifteen (n = 15) case-control studies were identified and included across three electronic databases. Studies additionally utilizing ASD samples were included because of their clinical utility.
UNASSIGNED: Most studies reported significant SC impairments in SCZ relative to healthy controls (HC) with varying effect sizes. Significant differences between SCZ and ASD were not found in most studies including both samples. Weak-to-moderate correlations between SC and NSC were often found, although often only within patient samples. Across studies, SC tests were inconsistently described as measurements of \"social cognition\", \"mentalization\" and, most frequently and varyingly, \"theory of mind\". Most studies lacked methodological transparency. Limitations related to sample sizes and test reliability were most frequently mentioned.
UNASSIGNED: The current research on SC in SCZ is limited by conceptual and methodological uncertainties. Future research should focus on ensuring clear and valid definitions of key terms, evaluating and clarifying SC outcome measures and further untangling the relationship between SC and NSC.
UNASSIGNED: The present study aimed to map, index and assess the quality of research published between 2014-2021 investigating SC in SCZ, and to summarize existing limitations and recommendations for future research.
UNASSIGNED: Following the PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) fifteen (n = 15) case-control studies were identified and included across three electronic databases. Studies additionally utilizing ASD samples were included because of their clinical utility.
UNASSIGNED: Most studies reported significant SC impairments in SCZ relative to healthy controls (HC) with varying effect sizes. Significant differences between SCZ and ASD were not found in most studies including both samples. Weak-to-moderate correlations between SC and NSC were often found, although often only within patient samples. Across studies, SC tests were inconsistently described as measurements of \"social cognition\", \"mentalization\" and, most frequently and varyingly, \"theory of mind\". Most studies lacked methodological transparency. Limitations related to sample sizes and test reliability were most frequently mentioned.
UNASSIGNED: The current research on SC in SCZ is limited by conceptual and methodological uncertainties. Future research should focus on ensuring clear and valid definitions of key terms, evaluating and clarifying SC outcome measures and further untangling the relationship between SC and NSC.
摘要：
■在精神分裂症（SCZ）中经常发生社会认知（SC）受损，然而与自闭症谱系障碍(ASD)相比，SCZ中SC的研究是稀疏的，在方法上是异构的。为了准确评估群体SC之间的差异，有必要进一步建立非社会认知（NSC）与SC之间的关系。特别是因为这在不同的疾病中可能不相同。
■本研究旨在绘制，对2014-2021年间发表的SCZ调查SC的研究质量进行索引和评估，并总结现有的局限性和对未来研究的建议。
■遵循PRISMA范围审查指南（PRISMA-ScR），确定了15项（n=15）病例对照研究，并将其纳入三个电子数据库。包括另外利用ASD样品的研究,因为它们的临床效用。
■大多数研究报告了SCZ相对于健康对照（HC）的显着SC损伤，具有不同的效应大小。在包括两个样本的大多数研究中，SCZ和ASD之间均未发现显着差异。经常发现SC和NSC之间的弱至中等相关性，尽管通常仅在患者样本中。在整个研究中，SC测试被不一致地描述为“社会认知”的测量，“精神化”和，最常见和变化的是，“心理理论”。大多数研究缺乏方法的透明度。与样本量和测试可靠性有关的限制最常被提及。
■当前在SCZ中对SC的研究受到概念和方法不确定性的限制。未来的研究应侧重于确保关键术语的清晰和有效的定义，评估和澄清SC结局指标，进一步理清SC和NSC之间的关系。
■本研究旨在绘制，对2014-2021年间发表的SCZ调查SC的研究质量进行索引和评估，并总结现有的局限性和对未来研究的建议。
■遵循PRISMA范围审查指南（PRISMA-ScR），确定了15项（n=15）病例对照研究，并将其纳入三个电子数据库。包括另外利用ASD样品的研究,因为它们的临床效用。
■大多数研究报告了SCZ相对于健康对照（HC）的显着SC损伤，具有不同的效应大小。在包括两个样本的大多数研究中，SCZ和ASD之间均未发现显着差异。经常发现SC和NSC之间的弱至中等相关性，尽管通常仅在患者样本中。在整个研究中，SC测试被不一致地描述为“社会认知”的测量，“精神化”和，最常见和变化的是，“心理理论”。大多数研究缺乏方法的透明度。与样本量和测试可靠性有关的限制最常被提及。
■当前在SCZ中对SC的研究受到概念和方法不确定性的限制。未来的研究应侧重于确保关键术语的清晰和有效的定义，评估和澄清SC结局指标，进一步理清SC和NSC之间的关系。
