Skip to main content
. 2022 Oct 3;2022(10):CD013337. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013337.pub2

Kim 2006.

Study characteristics
Methods Randomisation: randomised, no other details
Blinding: open‐label
Duration: 12 weeks
Participants Diagnosis: DSM‐IV criteria for schizophrenia
N = 14
Age: 18–55 years
Sex: male
Setting: outpatients
History: treated with a second‐generation antipsychotic for at least 8 weeks, with the same dose for at least 4 weeks; clinically stable; and to have a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2, or ≥ 27 kg/m2 plus adult treatment; panel III hyperlipidaemia or hypertriglyceridaemia
Excluded: diagnosis of DSM‐IV substance abuse within the last month or DSM‐IV substance
dependence within the last 6 months; cannabis use more than once weekly; Calgary Depression Rating Scale (CDS) total score > 7; suicidality or hospitalisation for depression in prior 6 months; the use of any medication known to alter weight or appetite; and pregnant or nursing women
Interventions
  1. Topiramate 25 mg twice/d, increased to 50 mg twice/d. on d 8; N = 25

  2. Control group; N = 23


Both groups on olanzapine, 10 mg/d, increasing but not to exceed 20 mg/d
Outcomes Able to use:
  1. Primary outcome

    1. Weight measures

      1. Change in body weight

  2. Secondary outcome

    1. Mental state

      1. PANSS

    2. Adverse events

      1. Insomnia

Notes  
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Randomisation methods not reported
Allocation concealment (selection bias) High risk Allocation concealment not indicated; open‐label study
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes High risk Open‐label
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes Low risk Weight outcomes unlikely to be biased by blinding
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes Low risk Data were analysed in accordance with ITT methodology
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Primary outcome measure was reported
Other bias Low risk No obvious bias