ArticleBMJ open2025
What is the current scope of research assessing patients' and clinicians' perspectives on clozapine treatment? A comprehensive scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Randomised controlled trial of clozapine in resistant schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder.Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) · 2025Trial
- Review
- Adult psychiatrists' views on clozapine prescribing for schizophrenia in Germany-an online survey.Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesClozapine is continuously underused. The existing systematic reviews addressing barriers to clozapine prescribing primarily focus on clinical staff's attitudes and perceived barriers to prescribing. However, a preliminary literature search revealed additional literature on the subject not previously included in systematic reviews, including literature on patient perspectives. A scoping review is warranted to map the scope of primary studies on patients' and/or clinicians' perspectives on clozapine treatment and to identify gaps in research.
designA scoping review was designed and reported in accordance with established guidelines for scoping reviews. DATA SOURCES: The electronic databases Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar and two grey literature databases were searched. Furthermore, citation tracking of selected studies was undertaken. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included primary, empirical studies reporting clinicians' and/or patients' perspectives on clozapine treatment. No limitation was set for the year of publication or type of primary study. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two researchers independently screened for studies, extracted the data and coded the content. Findings were summarised visually and narratively.
results146 studies were included. Most studies reported on patients' or clinicians' perspectives on active clozapine treatment or on clinicians' perspectives on barriers to clozapine initiation in general. Three gaps in research were identified: (1) clozapine-eligible, yet clozapine-naïve, patients' attitudes towards clozapine commencement, (2) clinicians' reasons for clozapine withholding and perceived facilitators of clozapine treatment in specific patient-cases and (3) patient and clinician perspectives on clozapine discontinuation, continuation and rechallenge in specific patient cases.
conclusionsResearch on clozapine perspectives tends to repeat itself. Future studies addressing the identified gaps in evidence could provide the insights needed to optimise clozapine utilisation.
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.