Summary of findings for the main comparison. Chlorpromazine compared to Clotiapine for schizophrenia.
| Chlorpromazine compared with Clotiapine for schizophrenia | ||||||
| Patient or population: people with schizophrenia Settings: Intervention: chlorpromazine Comparison: clotiapine | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Clotiapine for schizophrenia | Chlorpromazine | |||||
| Global state: clinically important change | Not reported in any study | |||||
| Mental state: 1a. General symptoms ‐ average change (PANSS, short term) | The mean mental state: average improvement scores in the intervention groups was 11.50 higher (9.42 to 13.58 higher) | 31 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,5 | Pre‐stated outcome of clinically important change in mental state not reported | ||
| Mental state: 2c. Specific ‐ average change score for negative symptoms (PANSS ‐ negative short term) | The mean mental state in the intervention groups was 0.97 lower (2.76 lower to 0.82 higher) | 21 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 | |||
| Adverse effects: incidence of serious adverse effects. Movement disorders ‐ dyskinesia ‐short‐term | Study population | RR 3.00 (0.13 to 71.15) | 68 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 | ||
| 179 per 1000 | 243 per 1000 (168 to 354) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 49 per 1000 | 67 per 1000 (46 to 97) | |||||
| Adverse effects: clinically significant extrapyramidal symptoms | Not reported in any study | |||||
| Leaving the study early: for any reason | Study population | RR 0.68 (0.24 to 1.88) | 158 (3 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,4 | ||
| 283 per 1000 | 172 per 1000 (31 to 961) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 296 per 1000 | 181 per 1000 (33 to 1000) | |||||
| Cost of care | Not reported in any study | |||||
| *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: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. | ||||||
1Risk of bias: serious ‐ downgraded by 1: study has an unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, or no wash‐out period reported, or source of funding unclear. 2Imprecision: serious ‐ downgraded by 1: there are very few participants, number of events small 3Publication bias: serious ‐ downgraded by 1: the study results only published in a local Japanese journal. 4Inconsistency: serious ‐ downgraded by 1: there was high heterogeneity in the pooled results. 5Indirectness: serious ‐ downgraded by 1: not direct measure of prespecified outcome.