General Disclaimer
The overarching goal of this database is to serve as an unbiased, centralized, publicly available and regularly updated collection of genetic association studies performed on various schizophrenia phenotypes. To ensure the highest degree of objectivity regarding the posted information, only studies published or in press in peer-reviewed journals available in English are considered for inclusion into the database. We do not consider for inclusion data from abstracts presented at scientific meetings or findings reported in non-peer-reviewed publications.

While we have made every possible effort to correctly represent the data of all studies fulfilling the above criteria, we cannot exclude the possibility that some studies are cited incorrectly or were erroneously excluded. However, we are not able to make any warranty, either expressed or implied, with respect to the functioning and accuracy of this database. No responsibility is assumed by the authors and curators.

Please contact us if you detect an error in the data or to submit general concerns, comments, and suggestions about the database. We encourage authors of original schizophrenia association studies either published or in press at a peer-reviewed scientific journal to send us your data.

Meta-analyses Disclaimer
While the meta-analyses presented in this database take into account between-study heterogeneity by applying random effects models, they do not account for potential confounding due to publication bias, that is, that the outcome or significance of any particular study directly influences its probability of publication. However, we allow the user to assess this question by routinely providing funnel plots alongside each meta-analysis. Especially in the presence of small studies with unusually large or small effect sizes, the allele-specific summary ORs presented in the meta-analysis section may be biased either upward or downward. These studies are usually located outside the "funnel."

Please note, that in instances in which only a few studies are included in the meta-analyses (i.e., fewer than 8-10), the random effects model may yield summary ORs that are slightly anti-conservative.