Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26240748›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic advances in psychopharmacology2015

Clozapine prescribing in the UK: views and experience of consultant psychiatrists.

Tongeji E Tungaraza, Saeed Farooq

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

2 authors.

Tongeji E TungarazaChoice Lifestyles LTD, Birmingham B17 8LL, UK.
Saeed FarooqBlack Country NHS Foundation Trust and Staffordshire University, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesIt has been repeatedly shown that clozapine is underutilized and there is delayed use of it in clinical practice.

methodAn online survey was sent to 2771 consultant psychiatrists registered with the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK. A total of 243 responded to this survey. The survey elicited their views and experiences in using clozapine as well as to identify what may be the underlying causes for its underutilization.

resultsOver 75% acknowledged that they had good training in using clozapine and about 56% had clozapine-dedicated service. However, 40.5% preferred to use several other antipsychotics prior to considering clozapine. A third felt it was not safe to start clozapine in the community and 42% had less than five patients on clozapine. Eleven possible reasons for clozapine underutilization were identified including concerns about side effects, patients not wanting to have blood tests and lack of experience or knowledge. Knowledge deficiency in certain aspects of clozapine use were identified, e.g. a third of respondents did not know that the risk of agranulocytosis changes with time, 42.7% did not think that clozapine can reduce substance use, while 20% were not aware of its benefit in reducing suicidal risk.

conclusionsImportant areas of concern such as managing side effects and deficiency in evidence-based use of clozapine were identified. These can be targeted in training and professional development programme.

Indexed as

antipsychoticsclozapinetreatment-resistant schizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID26240748
PMCPMC4521444

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.