Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29707225›Full record

ArticleJRSM open2018

A quantitative analysis of antipsychotic prescribing trends for the treatment of schizophrenia in England and Wales.

Rossela Roberts, Abigail Neasham, Chania Lambrinudi, Afshan Khan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JRSM open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Antipsychotic management in general practice: serial cross-sectional study (2011-2020).The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Rossela RobertsSchool of Psychology, Bangor University, Bangor LL57 2DG, UK.
Abigail NeashamSchool of Psychology, Bangor University, Bangor LL57 2DG, UK.
Chania LambrinudiSchool of Psychology, Bangor University, Bangor LL57 2DG, UK.
Afshan KhanSchool of Psychology, Bangor University, Bangor LL57 2DG, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study aims to assess the current antipsychotic prescribing trends for the treatment of schizophrenia and to compare them with available guidelines and research evidence.

designAn observational retrospective quantitative analysis.

settingData were collected from the prescribing cost analysis for the period between 2007 and 2014, including all drugs from the British National Formulary 4.2.1 and 4.2.2. Prescriptions were included from primary and secondary healthcare settings in England and Wales.

participantsNone.

main outcome measuresDefined daily doses of antipsychotics were used to compare popularity of individual drugs and classes of antipsychotics.

resultsThere is a consistent increase in the proportion of atypical antipsychotics prescribed, compared to typical antipsychotics, between 2007 and 2014, with atypicals accounting for 79.9% of total antipsychotics prescribed in 2014.

conclusionThe consistent popularity of atypical antipsychotics is not concordant with the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines for the treatment of schizophrenia or the most recent research evidence.

Indexed as

changing physician behaviourguidelinesmedicines regulationPsychotic disorders

Identifiers

PMID29707225
PMCPMC5912284

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.