Summary of findings for the main comparison. Chlorpromazine versus piperacetazine for schizophrenia.
| Chlorpromazine versus piperacetazine for schizophrenia | ||||||
| Patient or population: people with schizophrenia Settings: hospital Intervention: chlorpromazine versus piperacetazine for schizophrenia (short term) | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No. of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control5 | Chlorpromazine versus piperacetazine for schizophrenia | |||||
| Global state: clinically important change ‐ as defined by each of the studies Follow‐up: 8 weeks | 800 per 1000 | 544 per 1000 (208 to 1000) | RR 0.90 (0.80 to 1.02) | 208 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Very low1,2 | |
| Mental state: overall mean change score (BPRS total, high = poor)* | See comments | The mean mental state change in total scores (BPRS, high = poor) ‐ short term in the intervention groups was 0.40 lower (1.41 lower to 0.61 higher) | 182 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very low1,2,4 | * No trial reported clinically important change in mental state which was our predefined outcome of interest | |
| Mental state: specific ‐ clinically important change in negative symptoms | No trial reported any data which could be used | |||||
| Adverse effects/events: incidence of adverse effects ‐ as defined by each of the studies Follow‐up: mean 10 weeks | 600 per 1000 | 642 per 1000 (504 to 828) | RR 1.00 (0.75 to 1.33) | 74 (3 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very low2,3 | |
| Adverse effects/events: clinically important movement disorder (Parkinsonism) | 400 per 1000 |
392 per 1000 (252 to 608) |
RR 0.95 (0.61 to 1.49) | 106 (3 studies) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very low2,3 | |
| Leaving the study early ‐ for any reason Follow‐up: mean 10 weeks | 5 per 1000 | 15 per 1000 (2 to 129) | RR 0.50 (0.10 to 2.56) | 256 (4 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very low2,3 | |
| Economic costs | No trial reported relevant data | |||||
| *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. | ||||||
1Serious imprecision: there are very few participants ‐ downgraded by 1. 2Strongly suspected publication bias: due to small sample size and insignificant results ‐ downgraded by 1. 3Very serious risk of bias: high risk of bias for random sequence generation and allocation concealment. Unclear risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessments and incomplete outcome data ‐ downgraded by 2. 4Serious indirectness: not a direct measure of prespecified outcome ‐ downgraded by 1. 5All control group rates rounded from control group within the relevant studies.