Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37925094›Full record

SynthesisNeuroscience and biobehavioral reviews2023

An umbrella review of adverse effects associated with antipsychotic medications: the need for complementary study designs.

Rachel T S Chow, Daniel Whiting, Louis Favril, Edoardo Ostinelli, Andrea Cipriani, Seena Fazel

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
10.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Rachel T S ChowDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK.
Daniel WhitingInstitute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, England, UK; Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Nottingham, England, UK.
Louis FavrilFaculty of Law and Criminology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Edoardo OstinelliDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK.
Andrea CiprianiDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK; Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, England, UK.
Seena FazelDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK; Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, England, UK. Electronic address: seena.fazel@psych.ox.ac.uk.
University of Oxford · GBGhent University · BENottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust · GBWarneford Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antipsychotic medications are widely prescribed in psychotic illnesses and other mental disorders. Effectiveness is well-established, particularly for reducing symptoms such as delusions and hallucinations, but can be impacted by tolerability. Adverse effects are wide-ranging, and vary between antipsychotics, which is clinically important. This umbrella review aimed to comprehensively summarise the extent and quality of evidence for adverse effects associated with antipsychotic use in people with mental disorders. We included 32 meta-analyses of randomised trials and observational studies. The overall robustness of reported associations was considered in terms of review quality, heterogeneity, excess significance bias, and prediction intervals. Using this approach, endocrine and metabolic, movement-related, and sedation and sleep problems were the clinical domains with strongest evidence. The overall quality of included meta-analyses was low, and individual adverse effects were not typically examined in meta-analyses of both randomised trials and observational study designs. Future reviews should focus on adhering to methodological guidelines, consider the complementary strengths of different study designs, and integrate clinically relevant information on absolute rates and severity of adverse effects.

Indexed as

Antipsychotic AgentsMental DisordersHumansObservational Studies as TopicAntipsychotic AgentsAdverse effectsAntipsychoticsMetabolicPsychopharmacologyPsychosisSedation

Identifiers

PMID37925094
PMCPMC10914636
OpenAlexW4388209421

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.