ReviewEuropean archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience2008
Do effectiveness ("real world") studies on antipsychotics tell us the real truth?
Review in European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs against hostility in patients with schizophrenia in the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) study.CNS spectrums · 2014Trial
- Five-year trend of antipsychotic prescription practices in a district Hospital in Ghana: A retrospective study.Neuropsychopharmacology reports · 2023Article
- EPA guidance on improving the image of psychiatry.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2016Article
- [National and international schizophrenia guidelines. Update 2013 regarding recommendations about antipsychotic pharmacotherapy].Der Nervenarzt · 2013Review
- How close is evidence to truth in evidence-based treatment of mental disorders?European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2012Article
- Publication bias in antipsychotic trials: an analysis of efficacy comparing the published literature to the US Food and Drug Administration database.PLoS medicine · 2012Article
- Achievement and maintenance of the new impact factor 2010.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2011Article
- Effectiveness studies: advantages and disadvantages.Dialogues in clinical neuroscience · 2011Review
- Evidence-based medicine in psychopharmacotherapy: possibilities, problems and limitations.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2010Article
- Principle standards and problems regarding proof of efficacy in clinical psychopharmacology.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2010Article
- [Core symptoms of depression].Der Nervenarzt · 2009Article
- Is evidence sufficient for evidence-based medicine?European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2009Review
- The CATIE and CUtLASS studies in schizophrenia: results and implications for clinicians.CNS drugs · 2009Article
- Do "real world" studies on antipsychotics tell us the real truth?World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, so-called "effectiveness studies" have gained increasing importance in the context of evidence-based medicine. These studies supposedly follow less restrictive methodological standards than phase III studies in terms of patient selection, co-medication and other design issues, and their results should therefore be better generalisable than those of phase III studies. Effectiveness studies, like other types of phase IV studies, can therefore contribute to the knowledge about antipsychotics or other psychopharmaceuticals and supply relevant information in addition to that gained from phase III trials. However, the less restrictive design and inherent methodological problems of phase IV studies mean that their results cannot falsify the results of phase III studies. The greater complexity of phase IV studies, for example the greater variance caused by the different kinds of confounders, means that their results have to be interpreted with great care and especially with a high degree of awareness of problematic design issues, such as insensitive primary outcome criteria, biased randomisation, unblinded treatment conditions, inclusion of chronic refractory patients, etc. Some recently published effectiveness studies on antipsychotic treatment of schizophrenia will be discussed under these methodological aspects. The main conclusions of these trials will be questioned on the basis of their severe methodological pitfalls.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18622639What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.