ArticleHealth affairs (Project Hope)
Comparative effectiveness research for antipsychotic medications: how much is enough?
Article in Health affairs (Project Hope). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Heterogeneity in action: the role of passive personalization in comparative effectiveness research.Health economics · 2014Article
- The economics of comparative effectiveness studies: societal and private perspectives and their implications for prioritizing public investments in comparative effectiveness research.PharmacoEconomics · 2010Article
- Regulatory benefit-risk assessment and comparative effectiveness research: strangers, bedfellows or strange bedfellows?PharmacoEconomics · 2010Article
- Quantitative Methods for Valuing Comparative Effectiveness Information.Biopharmaceutical report · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Second-generation antipsychotics have attracted practitioners' and policy-makers' attention, because of concerns over their health effects and costs. Comparative effectiveness data from the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE)-a high-profile National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded study-have been used to argue for restricting coverage for these costly drugs. But concerns about the design of CATIE and its associated cost-effectiveness analysis and uncertainty about the precision of these findings raise questions about this interpretation. Our work suggests that additional research to increase the precision of comparisons of the effectiveness of antipsychotics would be well worth the cost.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.