Summary of findings 8. RISPERIDONE DEPOT compared with TYPICAL DEPOT ANTIPSYCHOTICS for schizophrenia.
| RISPERIDONE DEPOT compared with TYPICAL DEPOT ANTIPSYCHOTICS for schizophrenia | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with schizophrenia Settings: Intervention: RISPERIDONE DEPOT Comparison: TYPICAL DEPOT ANTIPSYCHOTICS | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| TYPICAL DEPOT ANTIPSYCHOTICS | RISPERIDONE DEPOT | |||||
| Global state: Relapse ‐ long term | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | 0 (0) | See comment | Outcomes relating to relapse were not reported for this comparison. |
| Mental state: Total average scores (PANSS, high score = worse) ‐ long term | The mean mental state: total average scores (PANSS, high score = worse) ‐ long term in the intervention groups was 1.8 higher (10.04 lower to 13.64 higher) | 43 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 | |||
| Leaving the study early for any reason ‐ long term | Study population | RR 3.05 (1.12 to 8.31) | 62 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 | ||
| 133 per 10003 | 407 per 1000 (149 to 1000) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 133 per 10003 | 406 per 1000 (149 to 1000) | |||||
| Adverse events: General: Severe adverse event | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | 0 (0) | See comment | "Severe adverse events" were not explicitly reported for this comparison. |
| Adverse events: related to movement disorder, weight gain, prolactin levels and glucose metabolism ‐ medium/long term ‐ not reported | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | ‐ | See comment | Outcomes relating to specific adverse events were not reported in such as way as to be useable. |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1 Risk of bias: 'serious' ‐ due to the open‐label nature of this study. 2 Imprecision: 'serious' ‐ due to the small size of the single study. 3 Assumed risk: median control group risk from the studies.