ArticleScientific reports2025
Nationwide health claims analysis of phenothiazine-associated retinopathy risk in chlorpromazine and perphenazine users.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Hydrochlorothiazide and chlorthalidone use and glaucoma risk: pharmacovigilance analysis and nationwide cohort study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We conducted a nationwide, retrospective cohort study to quantify the risk of phenothiazine-associated retinopathy among new users of chlorpromazine (n = 35,955) and perphenazine (n = 224,790) in South Korea between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2023. Adults without prior phenothiazine prescriptions or retinopathy who received at least one week of either drug were identified in the Health Insurance Review and Assessment database. We compared incidence rates of overall retinopathy, maculopathy, and pigmentary retinopathy/retinal degeneration before and after drug initiation, plotted cumulative incidence using Kaplan-Meier analyses, and used multivariable Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) adjusted for age and sex. We also examined dose-response relationships across quartiles of cumulative exposure. By the end of follow-up, overall retinopathy and maculopathy occurred in 10.3% and 2.7% of chlorpromazine users and 19.5% and 6.2% of perphenazine users, respectively, with pigmentary retinopathy/retinal degeneration developed in 3.6% and 7.6%, respectively. Post- versus pre-exposure incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for overall retinopathy were 1.17 (95% CI 1.12-1.22) with chlorpromazine and 1.10 (95% CI 1.08-1.11) with perphenazine; IRRs for maculopathy were 1.18 (95% CI 1.08-1.29) and 1.11 (95% CI 1.08-1.14), indicating a modest increase in risk after initiation (all P < 0.05) Cumulative perphenazine exposure was associated with a slight increase in risk for pigmentary retinopathy/retinal degeneration (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02-1.11 in the highest quartile, P = 0.012), the highest chlorpromazine quartile showed reduced risks for overall retinopathy (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.68-0.82), maculopathy (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.44-0.63), and pigmentary retinopathy/retinal degeneration (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.54-0.73; all P < 0.001). In multivariable models, perphenazine use (vs. chlorpromazine), older age, female sex, diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia were all significant predictors of the outcomes (all P < 0.05). These findings demonstrate that both drugs carry a modest risk of retinal toxicity-particularly perphenazine-and support the need for proactive ophthalmic screening in this population.
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.