Summary of findings 2. FLUPHENAZINE (ORAL) compared to RISPERIDONE for schizophrenia.
| FLUPHENAZINE (ORAL) compared to RISPERIDONE for schizophrenia | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with schizophrenia Settings: USA Intervention: FLUPHENAZINE (ORAL) Comparison: RISPERIDONE | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| RISPERIDONE | FLUPHENAZINE (ORAL) | |||||
| Clinically important response (defined by study) ‐ short term (up to 12 weeks) decreased rate of BPRS score < 20% Follow‐up: 12 weeks | 231 per 10001 | 155 per 1000 (30 to 773) | RR 0.67 (0.13 to 3.35) | 26 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low2,3,4 | |
| Relapse (long term) ‐ not reported | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | ‐ | See comment | No study reported this outcome |
| Clinically important change in life skills (long term) ‐ not reported | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | ‐ | See comment | No study reported this outcome |
| Quality of life (long term) ‐ not reported | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | ‐ | See comment | No study reported this outcome |
| Adverse effects: Extrapyramidal effects ‐ short/medium term (up to 12 weeks) ‐ not reported | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | ‐ | See comment | No study reported this outcome |
| Leaving the study early ‐ inefficacy short term (up to 12 weeks) Follow‐up: 12 weeks | 77 per 10001 | 83 per 1000 (6 to 1000) | RR 1.08 (0.08 to 15.46) | 25 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low2,3,4 | |
| Cost‐effectiveness (long term) ‐ not reported | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | ‐ | See comment | No study reported this outcome <BR/> |
| *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 Control risk: mean baseline risk presented for single included study. 2 Risk of bias: rated 'serious' ‐ randomisation methods unclear; rated 'high' for attrition bias, with data for some included participants 'lost'; only one small study included (Conley 2005, n = 40). 3 Indirectness: rated 'serious' ‐ only one included study provided data, which had three treatment arms (fluphenazine versus risperidone versus quetiapine). 4 Imprecision: rated 'very serious' ‐ few participants, few events, leading to uncertainty in the precision of estimate of effect.