Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25177834›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2014

Flupenthixol versus low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia.

Magdolna Tardy, Markus Dold, Rolf R Engel, Stefan Leucht

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Chlorpromazine versus metiapine for schizophrenia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Flupenthixol versus placebo for schizophrenia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  8. Review
  9. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Magdolna TardyKlinik und Poliklinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Technische Universität München Klinikum rechts der Isar, Möhlstr. 26, München, Germany, 81675.
Markus Dold
Rolf R Engel
Stefan Leucht
Technical University of Munich · DELudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEMünchen Klinik · DE

Funding

Department of Health 10/4001/15
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntipsychotic drugs are the core treatment for schizophrenia. Treatment guidelines state that there is no difference in efficacy between antipsychotic drugs, however, low-potency antipsychotic drugs are sometimes perceived as less efficacious than high-potency compounds by clinicians, and they also seem to differ in their side effects.

objectivesTo review the effects in clinical response of flupenthixol and low-potency antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (July 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that compared flupenthixol with first-generation low-potency antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) based on a random-effects model. MAIN

resultsThe review currently includes one randomised trial from mainland China with 153 participants that lasted two months and compared flupenthixol with chlorpromazine. The exact methods of sequence generation and allocation concealment were not reported, and medication was provided in an open manner. There were no data on the outcomes that we had a priori selected for a 'Summary of findings' table.There was no significant difference between flupenthixol and chlorpromazine in the participants' general mental state at endpoint as measured by the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) total score (1 randomised controlled trial (RCT), n = 153, MD 2.20 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.25 to 5.65). Chlorpromazine was associated with significantly less dizziness (1 RCT, n = 153, MD 0.12 95% CI 0.01 to 0.23); dystonia (1 RCT, n = 153, MD 0.29 95% CI 0.13 to 0.45); unsteady gait (1 RCT, n = 153, MD 0.46 95% CI 0.28 to 0.64); reduced facial expression (1 RCT, n = 153, MD 0.27 95% CI 0.09 to 0.45); restlessness (1 RCT, n = 153, MD 0.69 95% CI 0.45 to 0.93); rigidity (elbow) (1 RCT, n = 153, MD 0.48 95% CI 0.28 to 0.68); and tremor (1 RCT, n = 153, MD 0.56 95% CI 0.34 to 0.78). Chlorpromazine produced more dryness of mouth than flupenthixol (1 RCT, n = 153, MD -0.14 95% CI -0.25 to -0.03). AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe evidence base of flupenthixol versus low-potency first-generation antipsychotics is currently restricted to one randomised comparison with chlorpromazine. The few reported data do not suggest a difference in efficacy, but flupenthixol appeared to produce more movement disorders and dizziness, while chlorpromazine was associated with the anticholinergic side effect - dryness of mouth. More trials are needed to make conclusions about the relative effects of flupenthixol and low-potency antipsychotics.

Indexed as

Akathisia, Drug-InducedAntipsychotic AgentsChlorpromazineFlupenthixolHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSchizophreniaXerostomiaAntipsychotic AgentsChlorpromazineFlupenthixol

Identifiers

PMID25177834
PMCPMC10726982
OpenAlexW4230415217

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.