Summary of findings 4. FLUPHENAZINE (ORAL) compared to OLANZAPINE for schizophrenia.
| FLUPHENAZINE (ORAL) compared to OLANZAPINE for schizophrenia | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with schizophrenia Settings: multicentre, Croatia Intervention: FLUPHENAZINE (ORAL) Comparison: OLANZAPINE | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| OLANZAPINE | FLUPHENAZINE (ORAL) | |||||
| Clinically important response (defined by study) ‐ short term (up to 12 weeks) decreased rate of PANSS score < 40%, decreased rate of BPRS score < 40% Follow‐up: 22 weeks | 500 per 10001 | 665 per 1000 (430 to 1000) | RR 1.33 (0.86 to 2.07) | 60 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low2,3 | |
| 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 ‐ akathisia ‐ short term (up to 12 weeks) Follow‐up: 22 weeks | 100 per 10001 | 300 per 1000 (90 to 1000) | RR 3.00 (0.90 to 10.01) | 60 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low2,3 | |
| Leaving the study early: inefficacy ‐ short term (up to 12 weeks) Follow‐up: 22 weeks | 33 per 10001 |
100 per 1000 (11 to 908) |
RR 3.00 (0.33 to 27.23) |
60 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low2,3 | |
| Cost‐effectiveness (long term) ‐ not reported | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | ‐ | See comment | No study reported this outcome |
| *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 not adequately described; five participants excluded from analysis; sponsored by pharmaceutical company. 3 Imprecision: rated 'very serious' ‐ few participants, few events, leading to uncertainty in the precision of estimate of effect (Dossenbach 1998, n = 60).