ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2014
Indirect comparison analysis of efficacy and safety between olanzapine and aripiprazole for schizophrenia.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of aripiprazole for the treatment of schizophrenia: an overview of systematic reviews.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018Pooled it
- Extrapyramidal adverse events and anticholinergics use after the long-term treatment of patients with schizophrenia with the new long-acting antipsychotic Risperidone ISMAnnals of general psychiatry · 2023Article
- Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsIndirect comparison (IC) and direct comparison (DC) between aripiprazole and olanzapine for schizophrenia were conducted to compare their efficacy and safety. The objective was to determine the usability of IC and consistency of results delivered by the two comparisons. Factors that might influence the inconsistency of results were also investigated.
methodsICs and DCs were conducted using the change from baseline of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score as an efficacy endpoint and the dropout rate was selected as a safety endpoint. Placebo and risperidone were used as common comparators for ICs.
resultsA literature search identified 20 articles. The efficacy analysis gave results on the mean difference in PANSS change (95% CI) of -5.72 (-10.22, -1.22) in ICs using placebo as a common comparator and -7.41 (-15.96, 1.14) in DCs. When using risperidone as a common comparator, it was -9.15 (-20.12, 1.82). In rate ratio analysis of the all cause dropout rate, the IC result was 1.17 (0.83, 1.65) using placebo as a common comparator and 1.56 (0.57, 4.26) using risperidone as a common comparator. Both analyses gave consistent results between ICs and DCs. A slightly lower estimated value was observed in ICs using placebo.
conclusionsThis study demonstrated that ICs between olanzapine and aripiprazole can deliver results consistent with those of DCs. It is also suggested that the selection of a common comparator is important when control group bias is suspected in the data set.
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.