Summary of findings 2. Haloperidol versus first‐generation antipsychotics for schizophrenia (medium term).
| Haloperidol versus first‐generation antipsychotics for schizophrenia | ||||||
|
Patient or population: people with schizophrenia Setting: inpatients and outpatients Intervention: haloperidol versus other first‐generation antipsychotics (medium term) | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| first‐generation antipsychotic drugs | haloperidol | |||||
| Clinically important response to treatment (medium term) | Study population | RR 0.51 (0.37 to 0.69) | 80 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,3,5 | ||
| 1000 per 1000 | 510 per 1000 (370 to 690) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 1000 per 1000 | 510 per 1000 (370 to 690) | |||||
| Leaving the study early due to any reason as a measure of overall acceptability (medium term) | Study population | RR 1.02 (0.75 to 1.38) | 137 (2 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low2,3,5,6 | ||
| 543 per 1000 | 554 per 1000 (407 to 749) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 548 per 1000 | 559 per 1000 (411 to 756) | |||||
| Leaving the study early due to adverse events as a measure of overall tolerability (medium term) | Not estimable | Not estimable | Not estimable | 80 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,3,5 | |
| Adverse effects: number of participants with at least one adverse effect (medium term) | Study population | RR 1.07 (0.58 to 1.97) | 137 (2 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low2,4,5,6 | ||
| 657 per 1000 | 703 per 1000 (381 to 1000) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 708 per 1000 | 758 per 1000 (411 to 1000) | |||||
| Adverse effects: extrapyramidal side effects: number of participants with at least one extrapyramidal side effect (medium term) | Study population | RR 1.04 (0.62 to 1.75) | 80 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,3,5,6 | ||
| 405 per 1000 | 421 per 1000 (251 to 708) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 405 per 1000 | 421 per 1000 (251 to 709) | |||||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes7. 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 ‐ rated 'very serious': many studies did not report the methods for sequence generation and/or allocation concealment and were not free from selective reporting. 2 Risk of bias ‐ rated 'very serious': many studies did not report the methods for sequence generation and/or allocation concealment and were not free from selective reporting. High risk of bias regarding other bias in two studies (Abuzzahab 1982, Engelhardt 1978) and in terms of blinding in one trial (Abuzzahab 1982).
3 Inconsistency ‐ rated 'no': there was no substantial level of heterogeneity (defined by an I2 greater than or equal to 50% accompanied by a statistically significant Chi2 test). The direction of the effect of almost all studies was the same. Therefore, the overall results are not challenged by inconsistency.
4 Inconsistency ‐ rated 'very serious': there was a substantial level of heterogeneity (defined by an I2 greater than or equal to 50% accompanied by a statistically significant Chi2 test).
5 Publication bias ‐ rated 'undetected': based on the largely symmetrical arrangement of the trials in the funnel plot the likelihood for the presence of a publication bias can be regarded as being low. 6 Imprecision ‐ rated 'very serious': the 95% confidence interval around the pooled effect size includes "no effect", "appreciable benefit", and "appreciable harm". 7 The basis for the assumed risk was the risk in the pooled control group of the relevant studies.