Hendouei 2019.
Study characteristics | ||
Methods | 10‐week trial of resveratrol + risperidone versus placebo + risperidone | |
Participants | Inclusion criteria:
Exclusion criteria:
Location/setting: autism clinic in children's outpatient clinic of Roozbeh Hospital (Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran) Sample size: resveratrol (35); placebo (35) Number of withdrawals/dropouts: resveratrol (4, 2 ineligible to continue, 2 consent withdrawn); placebo (4, 4 consent withdrawn) Gender: 50 male, 12 female Mean age: resveratrol 7.8 (2.1); placebo: 8.1 (1.9) IQ: details not provided Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I of > 22 at baseline across both groups Concomitant medications: apart from resveratrol and risperidone no other concomitant medications were allowed in either group. History of previous medications: antipsychotics could not be taken in month prior to the study and any anticonvulsant use could not have changed in month prior to study |
|
Interventions | Intervention (resveratrol + risperidone): both groups were treated with risperidone twice daily, starting at a dose of 0.5 mg, with a dose increase of 0.5 mg per week (for the first 3 weeks). Resveratrol dosage was 250 mg twice per day from the beginning of the study. Comparator (placebo + risperidone): both groups were treated with risperidone twice daily, starting at a dose of 0.5 mg with a dose increase of 0.5 mg/week (for the first 3 weeks) plus placebo for 10 weeks. |
|
Outcomes | Primary outcomes:
Secondary outcomes: tolerability Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, week 5 and week 10 (endpoint) |
|
Notes | Study start date: January 2018 Study end date: April 2019 Funding: "This study was supported by a grant from Tehran University of Medical Sciences to Prof. Shahin Akhondzadeh (Grant No: 36420)" Conflicts of interest: "None of the authors in this study had conflict of interest of any kind with the parties that might be involved." Trial registry: IRCT20090117001556N104 |
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote: "Using the Microsoft Office Excel software, each patient was assigned to a specific random code." |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | The assignments were retained in confidential and sealed opaque envelops and were unveiled at the study endpoint for statistical analysis. |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Quote: "all individuals involved in this study, such as patients and researchers, were blinded to the assignments." |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Separate individuals were responsible for randomisations, drug administration, rating, data entry and statistical analysis. Furthermore, all individuals involved in this study, such as patients and researchers, were blinded to the assignments. |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Low attrition, and all participants were accounted for |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | High risk | Doesn't report CARS (primary outcome on trial reg) and measurement time points different to trial reg |
Other bias | High risk |
|