Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18234700›Full record

ReviewSchizophrenia bulletin2008

Methodological issues in current antipsychotic drug trials.

Stefan Leucht, Stephan Heres, Johannes Hamann, John M Kane

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Schizophrenia bulletin, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Clinical trial design in non-invasive brain stimulation psychiatric research.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2011
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Pharmaceutical care in a long-stay psychiatric hospital.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2016
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Stefan LeuchtDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München, Ismaningerstr. 22, 81675 München, Germany. Stefan.Leucht@lrz.tum.de
Stephan Heres
Johannes Hamann
John M Kane

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Every year numerous reports on antipsychotic drug trials are being published in neuropsychiatric journals, adding new information to our knowledge in the field. The information however is often hard for the reader to interpret, sometimes contradictory to comparable available studies and leaves more questions open than it actually answers. Although the overall quality of the studies is rather good, there are manifold options for further improvement in the conception, conduct, and reporting of antipsychotic drug trials. In this survey, we address methodological challenges such as the limited generalizability of outcomes due to patient selection and sample size; the vague or even lacking definition of key outcome parameters such as response, remission or relapse, insufficient blinding techniques, the pitfalls of surrogate outcomes and their assessment tools; the varying complex statistical approaches; and the challenge of balancing various ways of reporting outcomes. The authors present practical examples to highlight the current problems and propose a concrete series of suggestions on how to further optimize antipsychotic drug trials in the future.

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicAntipsychotic AgentsHumansSchizophreniaAntipsychotic Agents

Identifiers

PMID18234700
PMCPMC2632403

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.