Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30218445›Full record

SynthesisActa psychiatrica Scandinavica2018

Clozapine as a first- or second-line treatment in schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

C Okhuijsen-Pfeifer, E A H Huijsman, A Hasan, I E C Sommer, S Leucht, R S Kahn, J J Luykx

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Acta psychiatrica Scandinavica, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

C Okhuijsen-PfeiferDepartment of Psychiatry, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
E A H HuijsmanDepartment of Psychiatry, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
A HasanDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Klinikum der Universität, Munich, Germany.
I E C SommerDepartment of Neuroscience and Department of Psychiatry, Universitair Medisch Centrum Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
S LeuchtDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
R S KahnDepartment of Psychiatry, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
J J LuykxDepartment of Psychiatry, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6439-2774
Utrecht University · NLTechnical University of Munich · DEUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveNo consensus exists on whether clozapine should be prescribed in early stages of psychosis. This systematic review and meta-analysis therefore focus on the use of clozapine as first-line or second-line treatment in non-treatment-resistant patients.

methodsArticles were eligible if they investigated clozapine compared to another antipsychotic as a first- or second-line treatment in non-treatment-resistant schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SCZ) patients and provided data on treatment response. We performed random-effects meta-analyses.

resultsFifteen articles were eligible for the systematic review (N = 314 subjects on clozapine and N = 800 on other antipsychotics). Our meta-analysis comparing clozapine to a miscellaneous group of antipsychotics revealed a significant benefit of clozapine (Hedges' g = 0.220, P = 0.026, 95% CI = 0.026-0.414), with no evidence of heterogeneity. In addition, a sensitivity analysis revealed a significant benefit of clozapine over risperidone (Hedges' g = 0.274, P = 0.030, 95% CI = 0.027-0.521).

conclusionThe few eligible trials on this topic suggest that clozapine may be more effective than other antipsychotics when used as first- or second-line treatment. Only large clinical trials may comprehensively probe disease stage-dependent superiority of clozapine and investigate overall tolerability.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CareAntipsychotic AgentsClozapineHumansSchizophreniaAntipsychotic AgentsClozapineantipsychoticsfirst-episodemeta-analysisschizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID30218445
PMCPMC6175356
OpenAlexW2890878559

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.