ArticleCNS drugs2019
Subjective Versus Objective Outcomes of Antipsychotics for the Treatment of Neuropsychiatric Symptoms Associated with Dementia.
Article in CNS drugs, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundKnowledge about treatment status can influence effects measured in trials when subjective scales are used.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to compare subjective outcomes with objective outcomes of conventional and atypical antipsychotics for neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) in dementia.
methodsWe performed a meta-epidemiological study of 38 randomized, placebo-controlled trials. For effectiveness, we used change in NPS and response rate as subjective outcomes, while overall dropout and additional psychotropic use were used as objective outcomes. For side effects, extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) and somnolence were used as subjective outcomes, while dropout due to adverse events, medication use for EPS, and participants falling were used as objective outcomes.
resultsConventional antipsychotics reduced NPS more than placebo (standardized mean difference [SMD] - 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.49 to - 0.23), as did atypical antipsychotics (SMD - 0.14, 95% CI - 0.19 to - 0.08). Response rates in the drug groups were also higher. Overall dropout did not differ between conventional antipsychotics and placebo (odds ratio [OR] 1.03, 95% CI 0.77-1.37) or atypical antipsychotics and placebo (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.89-1.14). Furthermore, additional psychotropic use did not differ. The risk of EPS was higher for conventional (OR 2.93, 95% CI 2.04-4.22) and atypical antipsychotics (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.23-1.88) versus placebo, as was the risk of somnolence and dropout due to adverse events, but medication use for EPS, as well as risk of falls, was not.
conclusionsThe effectiveness of antipsychotics for NPS in dementia based on subjective scales was not confirmed using objective outcomes, in contrast to the increased risk of side effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.