Summary of findings 4. DOPAMINERGIC DRUGS compared to OTHER DRUGS for antipsychotic‐induced tardive dyskinesia.
| DOPAMINERGIC DRUGS compared to OTHER DRUGS for antipsychotic‐induced tardive dyskinesia | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with antipsychotic‐induced tardive dyskinesia Setting: inpatients in the USA Intervention: DOPAMINERGIC DRUGS (tetrabenazine) Comparison: OTHER DRUGS (haloperidol) | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with OTHER DRUGS | Risk with DOPAMINERGIC DRUGS | |||||
|
Tardive dyskinesia: No clinically important improvement follow‐up: 18 weeks |
Study population | RR 0.93 (0.45 to 1.95) | 13 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2 | ||
| 714 per 1000 | 664 per 1000 (321 to 1000) | |||||
|
Tardive dyskinesia: Deterioration follow‐up: 18 weeks |
Study population | RR 1.17 (0.09 to 14.92) | 13 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2 | ||
| 143 per 1000 | 167 per 1000 (13 to 1,000) | |||||
|
Adverse events ‐ not reported |
See comment | See comment | not estimable | 0 (0) | See comment | We found no studies reporting on this outcome. |
|
Mental state ‐ not reported |
See comment | See comment | not estimable | 0 (0) | See comment | We found no studies reporting on this outcome. |
|
Acceptability of treatment: Leaving the study early follow‐up: 18 weeks |
Study population | RR 0.23 (0.01 to 4.00) | 13 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2 | ||
| 286 per 1000 | 66 per 1000 (3 to 1,000) | |||||
| Social confidence, social inclusion, social networks, or personalised quality of life ‐ not reported | See comment | See comment | not estimable | 0 (0) | See comment | We found no studies reporting on this outcome. |
| *The risk in the intervention group (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 the 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. | ||||||
1 Downgraded one step for risk of bias: unclear whether randomisation procedure and allocation concealment were carried out adequately. 2 Downgraded two steps for imprecision: few events, very small sample size, and wide CI that includes both appreciable benefit and appreciable harm for intervention group as well as no effect.