Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35755718›Full record

ArticleExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2022

Patterns and predictors of oral antipsychotic prescribing in adult patients with schizophrenia.

Nina Vadiei, Jasim El-Ali, Joss Delaune, Cecilia Wild, Yi-Shao Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Nina VadieiThe University of Arizona, Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, Tucson, AZ, United States.
Jasim El-AliThe University of Arizona, Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, Tucson, AZ, United States.
Joss DelauneThe University of Arizona, Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, Tucson, AZ, United States.
Cecilia WildThe University of Arizona, Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, Tucson, AZ, United States.
Yi-Shao LiuThe University of Texas at Austin, Health Outcomes Division, College of Pharmacy, Austin, TX, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Evidence increasingly suggests minimal differences in efficacy between oral antipsychotics for the pharmacologic treatment of schizophrenia. As a result, newer treatment guidelines avoid an algorithmic approach to antipsychotic selection and recommend treatment be determined on a case-by-case basis. Objective: To determine patterns and predictors of oral antipsychotic prescribing for adults diagnosed with schizophrenia. Methods: This is a retrospective, cross-sectional study using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Survey (NAMCS) from 2005 to 2016 and 2018. Treatment options were defined as a first-generation antipsychotic (FGA), second-generation antipsychotic (SGA), or no antipsychotic. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify predictors of antipsychotic treatment, adjusting for predisposing, enabling, and need factors. Results: The final study sample consisted of visits by 38,403 adults (unweighted Conclusions: Multiple factors were associated with prescribing an SGA or FGA versus no antipsychotic, but no factors were associated with prescribing an SGA versus FGA. Future studies are needed to determine the reasoning behind differences in antipsychotic prescribing.

Indexed as

AdultsAntipsychoticPatternsPredictorsSchizophreniaUse

Identifiers

PMID35755718
PMCPMC9218131

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.