Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27977041›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2016

Risperidone versus placebo for schizophrenia.

Ranganath D Rattehalli, Sai Zhao, Bao Guo Li, Mahesh B Jayaram, Jun Xia, Stephanie Sampson

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Psychological interventions for psychosis in adolescents.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Ranganath D RattehalliGeneral Psychiatry, Logan Hospital, Meadowbrook, Brisbane, Australia, QLD 4131.
Sai ZhaoSystematic Review Solutions Ltd, 5-6 West Tashan Road, Yan Tai, Tianjin, China, 264000.
Bao Guo LiInterventional therapy department, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Huan-Hu-Xi Road, Ti-Yuan-Bei,He Xi District, Tianjin, China, 300060.
Mahesh B JayaramDepartment of Psychiatry, Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Jun XiaCochrane Schizophrenia Group, The University of Nottingham, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham Innovation Park, Triumph Road,, Nottingham, UK, NG7 2TU.
Stephanie SampsonThe University of Nottingham, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham Innovation Park, Jubilee Campus, Nottingham, UK, NG7 2TU.
Cochrane · GBInstitute of Mental Health · GBLogan Hospital · AUThe University of Melbourne · AUTianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRisperidone is the first new-generation antipsychotic drug made available in the market in its generic form.

objectivesTo determine the clinical effects, safety and cost-effectiveness of risperidone compared with placebo for treating schizophrenia. SEARCH

methodsOn 19th October 2015, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register, which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. We checked the references of all included studies and contacted industry and authors of included studies for relevant studies and data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing oral risperidone with placebo treatments for people with schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies, assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR), and the 95% confidence interval (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and the 95% CI. We created a 'Summary of findings table' using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). MAIN

resultsThe review includes 15 studies (N = 2428). Risk of selection bias is unclear in most of the studies, especially concerning allocation concealment. Other areas of risk such as missing data and selective reporting also caused some concern, although not affected on the direction of effect of our primary outcome, as demonstrated by sensitivity analysis. Many of the included trials have industry sponsorship of involvement. Nonetheless, generally people in the risperidone group are more likely to achieve a significant clinical improvement in mental state (6 RCTs, N = 864, RR 0.64, CI 0.52 to 0.78, very low-quality evidence). The effect withstood, even when three studies with >50% attrition rate were removed from the analysis (3 RCTs, N = 589, RR 0.77, CI 0.67 to 0.88). Participants receiving placebo were less likely to have a clinically significant improvement on Clinical Global Impression scale (CGI) than those receiving risperidone (4 RCTs, N = 594, RR 0.69, CI 0.57 to 0.83, very low-quality evidence). Overall, the risperidone group was 31% less likely to leave early compared to placebo group (12 RCTs, N = 2261, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.78, low-quality evidence), but Incidence of significant extrapyramidal side effect was more likely to occur in the risperidone group (7 RCTs, N = 1511, RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.15, very low-quality evidence).When risperidone and placebo were augmented with clozapine, there is no significant differences between groups for clinical response as defined by a less than 20% reduction in PANSS/BPRS scores (2 RCTs, N = 98, RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.42, low-quality evidence) and attrition (leaving the study early for any reason) (3 RCTs, N = 167, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.42, low quality evidence). One study measured clinically significant responses using the CGI, no effect was evident (1 RCT, N = 68, RR 1.12 95% CI 0.87 to 1.44, low quality evidence). No data were available for extrapyramidal adverse effects. AUTHORS'

conclusionsBased on low quality evidence, risperidone appears to be benefitial in improving mental state compared with placebo, but it also causes more adverse events. Eight out of the 15 included trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies. The currently available evidence isvery low to low quality.

Indexed as

Administration, OralAntipsychotic AgentsHumansPlacebosPublication BiasRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisperidoneSchizophreniaAntipsychotic AgentsPlacebosRisperidone

Identifiers

PMID27977041
PMCPMC6463908
OpenAlexW1989187405

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.