Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15967975›Full record

ReviewCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne2005

Modern antipsychotic drugs: a critical overview.

David M Gardner, Ross J Baldessarini, Paul Waraich

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 113 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
113citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
19.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

113 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 416 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Haloperidol dose for the acute phase of schizophrenia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

53 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

David M GardnerDepartment of Psychiatry and College of Pharmacy, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS. david.gardner@dal.ca
Ross J Baldessarini
Paul Waraich
Dalhousie University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conventional antipsychotic drugs, used for a half century to treat a range of major psychiatric disorders, are being replaced in clinical practice by modern "atypical" antipsychotics, including aripiprazole, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone and ziprasidone among others. As a class, the newer drugs have been promoted as being broadly clinically superior, but the evidence for this is problematic. In this brief critical overview, we consider the pharmacology, therapeutic effectiveness, tolerability, adverse effects and costs of individual modern agents versus older antipsychotic drugs. Because of typically minor differences between agents in clinical effectiveness and tolerability, and because of growing concerns about potential adverse long-term health consequences of some modern agents, it is reasonable to consider both older and newer drugs for clinical use, and it is important to inform patients of relative benefits, risks and costs of specific choices.

Indexed as

Antipsychotic AgentsClozapineHumansNervous System DiseasesPsychotic DisordersAntipsychotic AgentsClozapine

Identifiers

PMID15967975
PMCPMC1150265
OpenAlexW2097648013

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.