Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19370692›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2009

Chlorpromazine dose for people with schizophrenia.

Xiaomeng Liu, Saskia De Haan

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 129 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Chlorpromazine versus piperacetazine for schizophrenia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Chlorpromazine dose for people with schizophrenia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  3. Chlorpromazine versus clotiapine for schizophrenia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  4. Chlorpromazine versus metiapine for schizophrenia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  5. Chlorpromazine versus atypical antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Antipsychotic Use Pattern in Schizophrenia Outpatients: Correlates of Polypharmacy.Clinical practice and epidemiology in mental health : CP & EMH · 2017
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xiaomeng LiuUtrecht University, Postbus 85500, Utrecht, Netherlands, 3508 GA. enentee@gmail.com
Saskia De Haan
Utrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChlorpromazine is one of the three antipsychotic drugs on the WHO Essential Drug List. It is used worldwide. The optimal dose has been the subject of evaluative research but summaries of this work are rare.

objectivesTo determine chlorpromazine dose response and dose adverse effect relationships for schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (December 2008). References of all included studies were examined for further trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fixed doses of chlorpromazine for people with schizophrenia and reporting clinical outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated fixed-effect relative risk (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) based on a fixed-effect model. MAIN

resultsWe included four relevant studies (1012 participants) in this review. They are all hospital-based trials, have a duration of less than six months and are at moderate risk of bias. When low dose (</=400mg/day) was compared with medium dose (401-800 mg/day) mental state data were very few and difficult to interpret (n=22, 1 RCT, WMD 'withdrawal retardation' -2.00 CI -3.76 to -0.24). More people left for inefficacy of treatment in the low dose group (n=48, 1 RCT, RR 4.24 CI 0.24 to 74.01). In the short term, all measured extrapyramidal adverse effects tended to be lower in the low dose group (n=70, 2 RCTs, RR dystonia 0.20 CI 0.04 to 0.97). When low dose was compared with high (>800mg/day) data were taken from only one study (2gms chlorpromazine/day). Global state outcomes tended to favour the high dose group (n=416, 1 RCT, RR 'No clinically important improvement 1.12 CI 1.01 to 1.23). One case of death was reported in the high dose group (n=416, RR 0.33 CI 0.01 to 8.14) and a significantly greater number of people in the high dose group left early due to disabling adverse effects (n=416, RR 0.10 CI 0.04 to 0.27). Significantly less dystonia and unspecified extrapyramidal adverse effects were reported in the low dose group (n=416, dystonia RR 0.11 CI 0.02 to 0.45, unspecified extrapyramidal adverse effects RR 0.43 CI 0.32 to 0.59). People in both groups experienced akathisia (n=416, RR1.00 CI 0.55 to 1.83). AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe average dose of chlorpromazine given to people with schizophrenia has declined across time, but this has come about by long - and sometimes hard - experience rather than from direction from high-grade trial-based evidence. This progression towards gentler levels of dosing has taken six decades. We hope that, for modern compounds, data from relevant high-grade evaluative studies will be much more swiftly available to guide informed practice.

Indexed as

Antipsychotic AgentsChlorpromazineHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSchizophreniaAntipsychotic AgentsChlorpromazine

Identifiers

PMID19370692
OpenAlexW4255369243

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.