Summary of findings 3. ADJUNCTIVE BENZODIAZEPINES + ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus PLACEBO/NO ADJUNCTIVE TREATMENT + ANTIPSYCHOTICS for schizophrenia.
| Adjunctive benzodiazepines + antipsychotics versus placebo/no adjunctive treatment + antipsychotics for schizophrenia | ||||||
|
Patient or population: people with schizophrenia Setting: inpatients and outpatients Intervention: adjunctive benzodiazepines + antipsychotics versus placebo/no adjunctive treatment + antipsychotics | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control | Adjunctive benzodiazepines + antipsychotics versus placebo/no adjunctive treatment + antipsychotics | |||||
| No clinically important response to treatment ‐ ultra short term (at 60 minutes) | 286 per 1000 | 20 per 1000 (0 to 323) | RR 0.07 (0 to 1.13) | 45 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2 | |
| No clinically important response to treatment ‐ ultra short term (at 12 hours) | 514 per 1000 | 437 per 1000 (262 to 725) | RR 0.85 (0.51 to 1.41) | 67 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low2 | |
| No clinically important response to treatment ‐ short term (3 weeks or longer) | 307 per 1000 | 267 per 1000 (150 to 473) | RR 0.87 (0.49 to 1.54) | 511 (6 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low3,4 | |
| Leaving the study early due to any reason (overall acceptability of treatment) | 0 per 1000 | 0 per 1000 (0 to 0) | RR 1.36 (0.81 to 2.3) | 1185 (19 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low5,6 | |
| Leaving the study early due to adverse effects (overall tolerability of treatment) ‐ short term | 0 per 1000 | 0 per 1000 (0 to 0) | RR 3.24 (0.68 to 15.45) | 415 (6 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low7,8 | |
| Desired sedation ‐ ultra short term ‐ tranquillised at 60 minutes | 714 per 1000 | 992 per 1000 (757 to 1000) | RR 1.39 (1.06 to 1.83) | 45 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 | |
| Desired sedation ‐ ultra short term ‐ asleep at 12 hours | 514 per 1000 | 437 per 1000 (262 to 725) | RR 0.85 (0.51 to 1.41) | 67 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low9 | |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes10. 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 The study was not double‐blinded. 2 Serious imprecision: The 95% confidence interval of the risk ratio includes both "no effect" and "appreciable benefit". Downgraded by 1. 3Xuan 2007 was not blinded and Lingjaerde 1982 used a cross‐over study design. 4 Serious imprecision: The 95% confidence interval of the pooled risk ratio includes both "no effect" and "appreciable benefit". Downgraded by 1. 5 Five studies were not blinded und three used a cross‐over design. 6 Serious imprecision: The 95% confidence interval of the pooled risk ratio includes both "no effect" and "appreciable harm". Downgraded by 1. 7 One study used a cross‐over‐design and three were characterised by selective reporting. 8 Serious imprecision: The 95% confidence interval of the pooled risk ratio and best estimate of effect includes both "no effect" and "appreciable harm". Downgraded by 1. 9 Serious imprecision: The 95% confidence interval of the risk ratio includes both "no effect" and "appreciable harm". Downgraded by 1.
10 The basis for the assumed risk was the risk in the pooled control group of the relevant studies.