Summary of findings for the main comparison. DANCE THERAPY compared with STANDARD CARE for schizophrenia.
| DANCE THERAPY compared to STANDARD CARE for schizophrenia | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with schizophrenia Settings: Intervention: DANCE THERAPY Comparison: STANDARD CARE | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| STANDARD CARE | DANCE THERAPY | |||||
| Service utilisation‐days in hospital | No data available | No data available | ||||
| Clinical global response‐leaving the study early (short term) Follow‐up: 4 months | 95 per 1000 | 42 per 1000 (4 to 428) | RR 0.44 (0.04 to 4.49) | 45 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1,2 | |
| Clinical global response‐leaving the study early (long term) Follow‐up: 4 months | 429 per 1000 | 291 per 1000 (133 to 647) | RR 0.68 (0.31 to 1.51) | 45 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2,3 | |
| Mental state: 2a. Negative symptoms ‐ average score (PANSS negative endpoint, high = poor) Follow‐up: 4 months | The mean mental state: 2a. negative symptoms ‐ average score (PANSS negative endpoint, high = poor) in the control groups was 23.3 | The mean mental state: 2a. negative symptoms ‐ average score (PANSS negative endpoint, high = poor) in the intervention groups was 4.4 lower (8.15 to 0.65 lower) | 43 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1,2 | ||
| Mental state: 2b. Negative symptoms ‐ not improved (PANSS negative symptom reduction less than 20‐40%) Follow‐up: 4 months | 810 per 1000 | 502 per 1000 (316 to 785) | RR 0.62 (0.39 to 0.97) | 45 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1,2 | |
| Satisfaction with care: Average endpoint score (CAT, high = good) Follow‐up: 4 months | The mean satisfaction with care: average endpoint score (CAT, high = good) in the control groups was 6.4 | The mean satisfaction with care: average endpoint score (CAT, high = good) in the intervention groups was 0.4 higher (0.78 lower to 1.58 higher) | 42 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1,2 | ||
| Quality of life Manchester Short Assessment (MANSA, high = good) Follow‐up: 4 months | The mean quality of life Manchester short assessment (MANSA, high = good) in the control groups was 4.1 | The mean quality of life Manchester short assessment (MANSA, high = good) in the intervention groups was 0 higher (0.48 lower to 0.48 higher) |
39 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1,2 | ||
| *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: rated‐'serious': Randomised in blocks, no details reported. 2 Risk of bias: rated‐'serious': Single blind, but not tested. 3 Risk of bias: rated‐'serious': Over 40% of the participants were lost to follow‐up in control group