New generation antipsychotics for first episode schizophrenia

Johannes Hamann; Werner Kissling; Stefan Leucht; Christine Rummel‐Kluge

doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004410

Antipsicóticos de nueva generación para el primer episodio de esquizofrenia

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Referencias

References to studies included in this review

Ir a:

estudios excluidos
estudios a la espera de valoración
estudios en curso
otras referencias

Emsley R, McCreadie R, Livingston M, De Smedt G, Lemmens P. Risperidone in the treatment of first‐episode patients with schizophreniform disorder: a double‐blind multicenter study. 8th Congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology; 1995 Sep 30 ‐ Oct 4, Venice, Italy. 1995.

Google Scholar

Emsley R, McCreadie R, Livingston M, De Smedt G, Lemmens P. Risperidone in the treatment of first‐episode schizophrenic patients with schizophreniform disorder: a double‐blind study. Congress of the International Academy for Biomedical and Drug Research on Critical Issues in the Treatment of Schizophrenia. 1995.

Google Scholar

Emsley RA. Risperidone in the treatment of first episode psychotic patients: a double‐blind multicenter study. Schizophrenia Bulletin 1999;25(4):721‐9.

Sanger T, Lieberman J, Tohen M, Grundy S, Beasley C, Tollefson G. Olanzapine versus haloperidol treatment in first episode psychosis. 11th Congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology; 1998 Oct 31 ‐ Nov 4, Paris, France. 1998.

Google Scholar

Sanger T, Lieberman JA, Tohen M, Tollefson GD. Olanzapine versus haloperidol in the treatment of first episode psychosis. 21st Congress of the Collegium Internationale Neuro‐pssychopharmacologicum; 1998 July 12‐16, Glasgow, Scotland. 1998.

Google Scholar

Sanger T, Lieberman JA, Tohen M, Tollefson GD. Olanzapine versus haloperidol in the treatment of psychosis. 151st Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Association; 1998 May 30 ‐ June 4, Toronto, Canada. 1998.

Google Scholar

Sanger T, Tollefson GD, Lieberman JA, Tohen M. Olanzapine versus haloperidol in the treatment of first‐episode psychosis. 150th Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Assiciation; 1997 May 17‐22, San Diego, USA. 1997.

Google Scholar

Sanger TM, Lieberman JA, Tohen M, Grundy S, Beasley C, Tollefson GD. Olanzapine versus haloperidol treatment in first‐episode psychosis. American Journal of Psychiatry 1999;156(1):79‐87.

Sanger TM, Lieberman JA, Tohen M, Tollefson GD. Olanzapine versus haloperidol in the treatment of first episode psychosis. Schizophrenia Research 1998;29(1,2):151. [MEDLINE: 1999107319]

Tohen M, Sanger T, Tollefson GD. Gender differences in the response of olanzapine versus haloperidol in the treatment of first‐episode psychosis. 150th Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Association; 1997 May 17‐22, San Diego, USA. 1997.

Google Scholar

Tollefson GD, Sanger TM, Lieberman JA. Olanzapine versus haloperidol in the treatment of first episode psychosis. Schizophrenia Research 1997;24(1+2):193.

References to studies excluded from this review

Ir a:

estudios incluidos
estudios a la espera de valoración
estudios en curso
otras referencias

Breier A, Wright P, Birkett M, Meehan K, David S, Brook S. A double‐blind dose response study comparing intramuscular olanzapine, haloperidol and placebo in acutely agitated schizophrenic patients. 39th Annual Meeting of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology. 2000; Dec 10‐14; San Juan; Puerto Rico. 2000.

Google Scholar

Dellva MA, Beasley CM, Kuntz AJ, Tamura RN, Glazer WM, Morgenstern H, Tollefson GM. What is the differential risk of tardive dyskinesia with the novel antipsychotic olanzapine?. 11th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry; 1998 March 8‐11, San Diego, USA. 1998.

Google Scholar

Denney D, Stevens JR, Wilson WH, Ward M. Low dose clozapine treatment of drug resistant schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research 2001;49(1‐2 Suppl):225.

Google Scholar

Ferrari MCL, Elkis H. A six month trial of risperidone versus conventional neuroleptics in young patients with early onset schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research 1997;24(1+2):194.

Fischer W, Riedel M, Müller N, Möller HJ. Primary negative symptom schizophrenia: a study with the atypical neuroleptic zotepine. Schizophrenia Research 2000;41(1):208.

Gutierrez R. The long term value of an SDA in schizophrenia. 10th World Congress of Psychiatry; 1996 August 23‐28, Madrid, Spain. 1996.

Google Scholar

Haffmans P, Oolders J, von Bargen B, Hoencamp E. Subjective and objective sleep in schizophrenia. 8th Congress of the Association of European Psychiatrists; 1996 July 7‐12, London, UK. 1996.

Google Scholar

Hamilton SH, Edgell ET, Revicki DA, Breier A. Functional outcomes in schizophrenia: A comparison of olanzapine and haloperidol in a European sample. International Clinical Psychopharmacology 2000;15(5):245‐55.

Kalali A, Lasser R, Campbell B, Cucchiaro J, El‐Mizri H, Guven A, Matkovits‐Gupta T, Nann‐Vernotica E, Narurkar M, Pirozzi C, Gharabawi G. The management of cultural differences and the importance of safety monitoring in global studies: the realize clinical program. 39th Annual Meeting of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology. 2000; Dec 10‐14; San Juan; Puerto Rico. 2000.

Google Scholar

Kenny JT, Meltzer HY. Effect of atypical and typical antipsychotic drugs on neuropsychological functions in early‐stage schizophrenic patients. 7th Biennial European Winter Workshop on Schizophrenia; 1994 Jan 23‐28, Les Diablerets, Switzerland. 1992; Vol. 6, issue 2:162.

Google Scholar

Keshavan MS, Schooler NR, Sweeney JA, Haas GL, Pettegrew JW. Research and treatment strategies in first episode psychoses: the Pittsburgh experience. British Journal of Psychiatry 1998;172(33 Suppl):60‐5.

Kinon B, Basson BR, Malcolm SK, Tollefson G. Strategies for switching from conventional antipsychotic drugs to olanzapine. 152nd Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Association; 1999 May 15‐20th, Washington, USA. 1999.

Google Scholar

Kinon BJ, Gilmore J, Wang L. Exploration of a dose‐response relationship in schizophrenia with the novel antipsychotic drug olanzapine. Schizophrenia Research 2001;49(1‐2 Suppl):234‐5.

Google Scholar

Kinon BJ, Gilmore JA, Gottschalk LA. Exploration of a dose‐response relationship in schizophrenia with the novel antipsychotic drug olanzapine. 39th Annual Meeting of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology. 2000; Dec 10‐14; San Juan; Puerto Rico. 2000.

Google Scholar

Lam YW, Ereshefsky L, Toney GB, Gonzales C. Branded versus generic clozapine: bioavailability comparison and interchangeability issues. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 2001;62(Suppl 5):18‐22.

Google Scholar

Lee MA, Jayathilake K, Meltzer HY. A comparison of the effect of clozapine with typical neuroleptics on cognitive function in neuroleptic responsive schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research 1999;37(1):1‐11.

Lemmer W, Lehmann E. The efficacy and tolerance of zotepine and haloperidol in acute schizophrenia and the differential therapy of kava‐kava. 7th World Congress of Biological Psychiatry. 2001 July 1‐6, Berlin, Germany. 2001; Vol. 2.

Google Scholar

Magnuson WG. Childhood onset psychotic disorders: characterization and treatment with atypical neuroleptics. Treatment of childhood onset psychotic disorders with olanzapine or clozapine. National Institutes of Health2001.

Google Scholar

Mahmoud RA, Engelhart LM, Oster G, Ollendorf DAU. Psychiatric resource use under usual care conditions ‐ does risperidone increase resource use?. 151st Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Association; 1998 May 30 ‐ June 4, Toronto, Canada. 1998.

Google Scholar

Malla AK, Norman RM, Scholten DJ, Zirul S, Kotteda V. A comparison of long‐term outcome in first‐episode schizophrenia following treatment with risperidone or a typical antipsychotic. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 2001;62(3):179‐84.

McGlashan TH. Treatment intervention in the New Haven prime clinic prodromal sample. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 1999;12(Suppl 1):s62.

Google Scholar

McGorry P, Adlard S, Yung A, McDonald A, Phillips L, Hearn N. Detection and intervention in pre‐psychotic schizophrenia. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 1999;12(Suppl 1):s62.

Google Scholar

Meltzer H, Arato M, O´Connor R. Path analysis of the Zeus study provides evidence of a direct effect of ziprasidone on primary negative symptoms in chronic, stable schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research 2000;41(1):208‐9.

Merlo MCG, Hofer H, Marder SR. Effects on clinical psychopahrmacology and fine motor functions of 2 versus 4 mg risperidone in first episode psychotic patients. Schizophrenia Research 2000;41(1):26.

Mockler DM, O´Neill ST, Soni W, Morris RG, Sharma T. The effects of risperidone and typical antipsychotic drug treatments on memory function in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research 1999;1,2 & 3:144.

Google Scholar

David SR, Purdon S, Jones BD, Stip E, Labelle A, Breier AF, Tollefson GD, Kutcher SP, MacLaren C, Hadrava V, Thompson PM, Leblanc. Olanzapine versus risperidone versus haloperidol in early illness schizophrenia. 152nd Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Association; 1999 May 15‐20th, Washington, USA. 1999.

Google Scholar

Purdon SE, Jones B, Labelle A, Addington D, Tollefson G. A mulitcentre comparison of olanzapine, risperidone and haloperidol on working memory, new learning and delayed recall of verbal and nonverbal materials in early‐phase schizophrenia over a 12‐month prospective double‐blind clinical trial. Schizophrenia Research 1999;1,2 & 3:150.

Google Scholar

Purdon SE, Jones BD, Stip E, Labelle A, Addington D, David SR, Breier A, Tollefson GD. Neuropsychological change in early phase schizophrenia during 12 months of treatment with olanzapine, risperidone or haloperidol. Archives of General Psychiatry 2000;57(3):249‐58.

Purdon SE, Jones BDW, Stip E, Labelle A, Addington D, Breier A, Tollefson GD. Olanzapine versus haloperidol versus risperidone in early illness schizophrenia. Unpublished data on file.

Ramaekers JG, Louwerens JW, Muntjewerff ND, Milius H, de‐Bie A, Rosenzweig P, Patat A, O´Hanlon JF. Psychomotor, cognitive, extrapyramidal and affective functions of healthy volunteers during treatment with an atypical (amisulpride) and a classic (haloperidol) antipsychotic. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology 1999;19(3):209‐21.

Rein W, Turjanski S. Clinical update on amisulpride in deficit schizophrenia. International Clinical Psychopharmacology 1997;12(Suppl 2):s19‐27.

Robinson G, Wheeler A, Byrd J, Visser S. Longer‐term effects of switching from typical to atypical antipsychotics in patients with stable schizophrenia. Journal of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology 2000;10(Suppl 3):s291.

Sanger T, Tollefson GD. A controlled study on the course of primary and secondary negative symptoms. 150th Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Association; 1997 May 17‐22, San Diego, USA. 1997.

Google Scholar

Schooler N, Borenstein M, Ames D, Baker R, Umbricht D, Wirshing W, Kane J, Marder S. First improvement with clozapine: How patient should we be?. Schizophrenia Research 1997;24(1+2):188.

Schooler NR. Ziprasidone´s effect on anxiety in a group of outpatients with stable schizophrenia. International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology 2000;3(Suppl 1):S104.

Google Scholar

Schulz E, Fleischhaker C, Clement HW, Remschmidt H. Blood biogenic amines during clozapine treatment of early onset schizophrenia. Journal of Neural Transmission 1997;104(10):1077‐89.

Schulz E, Fleischhaker C, Remschmidt H. Correlated changes in symptoms and neurotransmitter indices during maintenance treatment with clozapine or conventional neuroleptics in adolescents and young adults with schizophrenia. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology 1996;6(2):119‐31.

Singh V. A six month international controlled trial of the therapeutic activity of amisulpride 200 to 800 mg/day versus olanzapine 5 to 20 mg/day in patients with schizophrenic disorders. National Research Register2000.

Google Scholar

Smith RC, Nigam S, Stern A, Infante M, Mehta R. Olanzapine in chronic nonresponding schizophrenia: effects on psychopathology and neurocognitive function. 21st Congress of the Collegium Internationale Neuro‐psychopharmacologicum; 1998 July 12‐16, Glasgow, Scotland. 1998.

Google Scholar

Swift RH, Harrigan EP, Kammen DP. A comparison of intramuscular (im) ziprasidone with im haloperidol. 9th Congress of the Association of European Psychiatrists; 1998 Sep 20‐24, Copenhagen, Denmark. 1998.

Google Scholar

Szulecka K. Open label extension of treatment with seroquel for patients who have participated in the phase IIIb clinical trial programme of project 321 multicentre double blind randomised comparison of seroquel & amp; risperidone. National Research Register2000.

Google Scholar

Tamminga CA, Thaker GK, Moran M, Kakigi T, Gao XM. Clozapine in tardive dyskinesia: observations from human and animal model studies. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 1994;55(Suppl B):102‐6.

Google Scholar

Wright P, Birkett M, Ferchland I, David S, Alaka K, Pullen P, Brook S, Reinstein M, Breier A. A double‐blind study of intramuscular olanzapine, haloperidol and placebo in acutely agitated schizophrenic patients. Journal of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology 2000;10(Suppl 3):s304.

References to studies awaiting assessment

Ir a:

estudios incluidos
estudios excluidos
estudios en curso
otras referencias

Edwards J, Maude D, McGorry P, Cocks J, Burnett P, Davern M, Bennett C, Harrigan S, Herman T, Wade D, Bell R. Treatment of enduring positive symptoms in first‐episode psychosis: a randomised controlled trial of cbt and clozapine. Schizophrenia Research 1999;1,2 & 3:278.

Google Scholar

Glenthoj BY, Mackeprang T, Fagerlund B, Hemmingsen R. Effects of antipsychotics on information‐processing and extrastriatal dopamine d2/d3 receptors in first‐episode drug‐naive schizophrenic patients. 39th Annual Meeting of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology. 2000; Dec 10‐14; San Juan; Puerto Rico. 2000.

Google Scholar

Glenthoj BY, Mackeprang T, Fagerlund B, Hemmingsen RP. Effects of antipsychotic treatment on prepulse inhibition of the startle response (ppi) and cognition in first episode drug‐naive schizophrenic patients. Schizophrenia Research 2001;49(1‐2 Suppl):133.

Google Scholar

Gordon C, Frazier J, McKenna K, Zametkin A, Zahn T, Hommer D, Hong W, Kaysen D, Albus K, Rapoport J. Childhood‐onset schizophrenia: a NIMH study in progress. Schizophrenia Bulletin 1994;20(4):697‐712.

Jarboe KS, Lewine RR. Haloperidol versus olanzapine induced weight gain and clinical relevance, a double‐blind and open label comparison. Schizophrenia Research 2001;49(1‐2 Suppl):232.

Google Scholar

Keefe RS, Seiden LJ, Christensen B, Yurgelun‐Todd DA, Lewine RR, Sitskoorn M, Sharma T, Clark WS, Sanger TM, Tohen M, Lieberman JA. Treatment of neurocognitive deficits with olanzapine or low‐dose haloperidol in first episode psychosis. 39th Annual Meeting of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology. 2000; Dec 10‐14, San Juan; Puerto Rico. 2000.

Google Scholar

Keefe RS, Seidman LJ, Christensen BK, Yurgelun‐Todd DA, Lewine RR, Lieberman MM, Sitskoorn J. Treatment of neurocognitive deficits with olanzapine or low‐dose haloperidol in first episode psychosis. Schizophrenia Research 2001;49(1‐2 Suppl):234.

Google Scholar

Gordon CT, Frazier JA, McKenna K, Giedd J, Zametkin A, Zahn T, Hommer D, Hong W, Kaysen D, Albus KE. Childhood‐onset schizophrenia: an NIMH study in progress. Schizophrenia Bulletin 1994;20(4):697‐712. [MEDLINE: 95215796]

Kumra S, Frazier JA, Jacobsen LK, McKenna K, Gordon CT, Lenane MC, Hamburger SD, Smith AK, Albus KE, Alaghband Rad J, Rapoport JL. Childhood‐onset schizophrenia. A double‐blind clozapine‐haloperdol comparison. Archives of General Psychiatry 1996;53(12):1090‐7. [MEDLINE: 97115273]

Lavalaye J, Linszen DH, Booij J, Reneman L, Gersons BP, van‐Royen EA. Dopamine D2 receptor occupancy by olanzapine or risperidone in young patients with schizophrenia. Psychiatry Research 1999;92(1):33‐44.

Green A, Tohen M, Strakowski SM, Lieberman JA, Glick D, Clarke SW. Comorbid substance use disorder and first episode schizophrenia: acute effects of olanzapine versus haloperidol. Schizophrenia Research 2001;49(1‐2 Suppl):230. [MEDLINE: 2001‐14228‐005]

Google Scholar

Lieberman J, Tohen M, McEvoy J, Sanger T, Keefe R, Charles C, Clark S, Brier A, Tollefson G. Olanzapine versus haloperidol in the treatment of first episode psychosis. 39th Annual Meeting of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology. 2000; Dec 10‐14; San Juan; Puerto Rico. 2000.

Google Scholar

Lieberman JA, Phillips M, Kong L, Gu H, Koch G. Efficacy and safety of clozapine versus chlorpromazine in first episode psychosis: results of a 52‐week randomized double‐blind trial. Schizophrenia Research 2001;49(1‐2 Suppl):236.

Google Scholar

Lieberman JA, Phillips M, Kong L, Gu H, Koch G. Efficacy and safety of clozapine versus chlorpromazine in first‐episode psychosis: results of a 52 week randomized double‐blind trial. 39th Annual Meeting og the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology 2000; Dec 10 ‐ 14; San Juan; Puerto Rico. 2000.

Google Scholar

van Bruggen JM, Linszen DH, Dingemans PM. An open study of olanzapine versus riperidone in the management of early‐phase schizophrenia and related disorders. Schizophrenia Research 1999;1,2 & 3:316‐17.

Google Scholar

References to ongoing studies

Ir a:

estudios incluidos
estudios excluidos
estudios a la espera de valoración
otras referencias

Gaebel W. Pharmacological long‐term treatment strategies for relapse prevention in first episode schizophrenia. N/A2000.

Google Scholar

Kane JM. Preventing morbidity in first‐episode schizophrenia. National Institutes of Health2001.

Google Scholar

Möller HJ. Optimization of acute treatment in first episode schizophrenic patients by new pharmacological treatments. N/A2000.

Google Scholar

Rasmussen M. The impact on long‐term outcome of early intervention with risperidone or haloperidol in first episode psychosis: characteristics at baseline. Schizophrenia Research 1999;1,2 & 3:293. [MEDLINE: 20473833]

Google Scholar

Reveley M. Ris‐int‐35 a double blind evaluation of risperidone versus haloperidol on the long‐term morbidity of early psychotic patients. National Research Register2000.

Google Scholar

Rosebush P, Mazurek M. Olanzapine versus haloperidol in randomized trials of first‐episode patients with schizophrenia. Stanley Foundation Research Awards ‐ 2000 Research Award Recipients2000.

Google Scholar

De Smedt G. Risperidone versus haloperidol in first episode psychosis. 11th World Congress of Psychiatry; 1999 Aug 6‐11, Hamburg, Germany. 1999; Vol. 2:147.

Google Scholar

Rasmussen M. The impact on long term outcome of early intervention with risperidone or haloperidol in first episode psychosis: characteristics at baseline. 21st Congress of the Collegium Internationale Neuro‐psychopharmacologicum; 1998 July 12‐16, Glasgow, Scotland. 1998.

Google Scholar

Schooler NR. The FutuRIS study ‐ a prospective long‐term evaluation of risperidone versus haloperidol in early psychosis patients. 6th World Congress of Biological Psychiatry; 1997 June 22‐27, Nice, France. 1997.

Google Scholar

Sharma T. A double‐blind evaluation of risperidone versus haloperidol on the long‐term morbidity of early psychotic patients. National Research Register2000.

Google Scholar

Sharma T. The acute and long‐term efficacy of olanzapine in first‐episode psychotic disorders: a randomised double‐blind comparison with haloperidol. National Research Register2000.

Google Scholar

Additional references

Ir a:

estudios incluidos
estudios excluidos
estudios a la espera de valoración
estudios en curso

Allison DB, Mentore JL, Heo M, Chandler LP, Cappelleri JC, Infante MC, Weiden PJ Antipsychotic‐induced weight gain: a comprehensive research synthesis. Antipsychotic‐induced weight gain: a comprehensive research synthesis. American Journal of Psychiatry 1999;156(11):1686‐96.

Google Scholar

Allison DB, Casey DE. Antipsychotic‐induced weight gain: a review of the literature. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 2001;62 Suppl 7:22‐31.

Google Scholar

Altman DG, Bland JM. Detecting skewness from summary information. BMJ 1996;313:1200.

Arnt J, Skarsfeldt T. Do novel antipsychotics have similar pharmacological characteristics? A review of the evidence. Neuropsychopharmacology 1998;18(2):63‐101.

Bagnall A‐M, Fenton M, Lewis R, Leitner ML, Kleijnen J. Molindone for schizophrenia and severe mental illness. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2002, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002083.pub2]

Google Scholar

Barnes TRE. A rating scale for drug‐induced akathisia. British Journal of Psychiatry 1989;154:672‐6.

Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, Pitkin R, Rennie D, Schulz KF, Simel D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996;276:637‐9.

Bland JM, Kerry SM. Trials randomised in clusters. BMJ 1997;315:600.

Boissel JP, Cucherat M, Li W, Chatellier G, Gueyffier F, Buyse M, Boutitie F, Nony P, Haugh M, Mignot G. The problem of therapeutic efficacy indices. 3. Comparison of the indices and their use. Therapie 1999;54(4):405‐11.

Bottlender R, Sato T, Jager M, Wegener U, Wittmann J, Strauss A, Moller HJ. The impact of the duration of untreated psychosis prior to first psychiatric admission on the 15‐year outcome in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res 2003;62(1‐2):37‐44.

Chouinard G. Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences 1980;7:233.

Google Scholar

Clarke M, Oxman AD. Cochrane reviewers' handbook. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Oxford: Update Software, 2000, issue 1.

Google Scholar

Curtis VA, Kerwin RW. A risk‐benefit assessment of risperidone in schizophrenia. Drug Saf 1995;12(2):139‐45.

Deeks J. Issues in the selection for meta‐analyses of binary data. Abstracts of 8th International Cochrane Colloquium. Cape Town, South Africa, 2000.

Google Scholar

Divine GW, Brown JT, Frazer LM. The unit of analysis error in studies about physicians' patient care behavior. Journal of General Internal Medicine 1992;7:623‐9.

Duggan L, Fenton M, Dardennes RM, El‐Dosoky A, Indran S. Olanzapine for schizophrenia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001359.pub2]

Google Scholar

Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta‐analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629‐34.

Fenton M, Murphy B, Wood J, Bagnall A‐M, Chue P, Leitner M. Loxapine for schizophrenia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2002, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001943.pub2]

Google Scholar

Fleischhacker WW, Lemmens P, van Baelen B. A qualitative assessment of the neurological safety of antipsychotic drugs; an analysis of a ripseridone database. Pharmacopsychiatry 2001;34(3):104‐10.

Gattaz WF, Schummer B, Behrens S. Effects of zotepine, haloperidol and clozapine on MK‐801‐induced stereotypy and locomotion in rats. J Neural Transm Gen Sect 1994;96(3):227‐32.

Gulliford MC, Ukoumunne OC, Chinn S. Components of variance and intraclass correlations for the design of community‐based surveys and intervention studies: data from Health Survey for England 1994. American Journal of Epidemiology 1999;149:876‐83.

Guy W, Bonato RR. Clinical Global Impressions. In: Guy W, Bonato RR editor(s). Manual for the ECDEU Assessment Battery. 2nd Edition. Washington DC, USA: National Institute of Mental Health, 1970.

Google Scholar

Interface between authorship, industry and science in the domain of therapeutics. Healy D, Cattell D. British Journal of Psychiatry 2003;183:22‐27.

Google Scholar

Herz MI, Liberman RP, Marder SR, McGlashan TH, Wyatt RJ, Wang P. Practice guideline for the treatment of patients with schizophrenia. Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Psychiatric Disorders, Compendium 2000. Washington D.C.: American Psychiatric Association, 2000:299‐412.

Google Scholar

Second International Study of Infarct Survival Collaborative Group. Randomised trial of intravenous streptokinase, oral aspirin, both, or neither among 17,187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS‐2. Lancet 1988;2:349‐60.

Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?. Controlled Clinical Trials 1996;17:1‐12.

Joy CB, Adams CE, Lawrie SM. Haloperidol versus placebo for schizophrenia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003082.pub2]

Google Scholar

Kay SR, Fiszbein A. The positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin 1987;13(2):261‐75.

Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003;326:1167‐70.

Marder SR, Essock SM, Miller AL, Buchanan RW, Davis JM, Kane JM, Lieberman J, Schooler NR. The Mount Sinai conference on the pharmacotherapy of schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 2002;28(1):5‐16.

Marshall M, Lockwood A, Bradley C, Adams C, Joy C, Fenton M. Unpublished rating scales: a major source of bias in randomised controlled trials of treatments for schizophrenia. British Journal of Psychiatry 2000;176:249‐52.

McEvoy JP, Schaffler PL, Frances A. Treatment of schizophrenia 1999. The expert consensus guideline series. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 1999;60 (suppl 11):3‐80.

Google Scholar

Meltzer HY. An overview of the mechanism of action of clozapine. J Clin Psychiatry 1994;55 Suppl B:47‐52.

Google Scholar

Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D, CONSORT Group. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel‐group randomized trials. 2001 JAMA;285(15):1987‐91.

Montgomery SA, Asberg M. A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. British Journal of Psychiatry 1979;134:382‐9.

National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guidance on the use of newer (atypical) antipsychotic drugs for the treatment of schizophrenia. NICE Technology Appraisal No. 432002.

Oehl M, Hummer M, Fleischhacker WW. Compliance with antipsychotic treatment. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl 2000;102(407):83‐6.

Overall JE, Gorham DR. The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Psychological Reports 1962;10:799‐812.

Perrault G, Depoortere R, Morel E, Sanger DJ, Scatton B. Psychopharmacological profile of amisulpride: an antipsychotic drug with presynaptic D2/D3 dopamine receptor antagonist activity and limbic selectivity. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 1997;280(1):73‐82.

Google Scholar

Reynolds GP. What is an atypical antipsychotic. Journal of Psychopharmacology 1997;11:195‐9.

Robinson DG, Woerner MG, Alvir JM, Bilder RM, Hinrichsen GA, Lieberman JA. Predictors of medication discontinuation by patients with first‐episode schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. Schizophrenia Research 2002;57(2‐3):209‐19.

Scatton B, Claustre Y, Cudennec A, Oblin A, Perrault G, Sanger DJ, Schoemaker H. Amisulpride: from animal pharmacology to therapeutic action. International Clinical Psychopharmacology 1997;12 (suppl):S29‐S36.

Schotte A, Janssen PF, Gommeren W, Luyten WH, Van Gompel P, Lesage AS, De Loore K, Leysen JE. Risperidone compared with new and reference antipsychotic drugs: in vitro and in vivo receptor binding. Psychopharmacology 1996;124(1‐2):57‐73.

Simpson M, Angus JW. A rating scale for extrapyramidal side effects. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 1970;212:11‐19.

Soares BG, Fenton M, Chue P. Sulpiride for schizophrenia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2000, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001162]

Google Scholar

Thornley B, Rathbone J, Adams CE, Awad G. Chlorpromazine versus placebo for schizophrenia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000284.pub2]

Tollefson GD, Beasley CM, Tran PV, Street JS, Krueger JA, Tamura RN, Graffeo KA, Thieme ME. Olanzapine versus haloperidol in the treatment of schizophrenia and schizoaffective and schizophreniform disorders: results of an international collaborative trial. American Journal of Psychiatry 1997;154(4):457‐65.

Google Scholar

Ukoumunne OC, Gulliford MC, Chinn S, Sterne JAC, Burney PGJ. Methods for evaluating area‐wide and organisation‐based interventions in health and health care: a systematic review. Health Technology Assessment 1999;3(5):iii‐92. [MEDLINE: 10982317]

Waraich PS, Adams CE, Roque M, Hamill KM, Marti J. Haloperidol dose for the acute phase of schizophrenia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001951]

Google Scholar

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Ir a:

estudios excluidos
estudios en curso

Emsley 1999

Methods	Allocation: random ‐ no further details. Blinding: double ‐ no further details. Duration: 6 weeks. Multi‐centre, multi‐national.
Participants	Diagnosis: provisional schizophreniform disorder or schizophrenia (DSM‐III‐R). Age: median ˜25 years. N=183. Age at onset of first symptoms of psychosis: median ˜ 24 years. Sex: female 61, male 122.
Interventions	1. Risperidone 4‐16 mg/d. N=99. 2. Haloperidol 4‐16 mg/d. N=84.
Outcomes	Leaving the study early. Clinical response: 50% reduction in PANSS or BPRS PANSS‐derived. Global state: CGI. Mental state: BPRS PANSS‐derived, PANSS. Unable to use ‐ Global state: GAF (no endpoint data). Extrapyramidal adverse effects: ESRS (no SD).
Notes
*Risk of bias*
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Allocation concealment?	Unclear risk	B ‐ Unclear

Sanger 1999

Methods	Allocation: random ‐ in a 2:1 (olanzapine:haloperidol) ratio. Blinding: double ‐ no further details. Duration: 6 weeks (preceeded by 2‐9 days screening and washout). Multi‐centre, multi‐national.
Participants	Diagnosis: schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder or schizoaffective disorder (DSM‐III‐R), BPRS score at least 18. N=83. Age: mean ˜ 28 years. Age at onset of current episode: ˜ 27 years. Sex: female 26, male 57.
Interventions	1. Olanzapine 5‐20 mg/d. N=59. 2. Haloperidol 5‐20 mg/d. N=24.
Outcomes	Leaving the study early. Clinical response: 40% BPRS improvement. Mental state: BPRS ‐ PANSS derived, MADRS, PANSS. Extrapyramidal adverse effects: Barnes Akathisia Scale, Simpson‐Angus Scale. Unable to use ‐ Weight gain (no SD).
Notes
*Risk of bias*
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Allocation concealment?	Unclear risk	B ‐ Unclear

General abbreviations:
SD ‐ Standard Deviation

Diagnostic tools:
DSM‐III‐R ‐ Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental disorders, third edition, revised.

Global effect scales:
CGI ‐ Clinical Global Impression
GAF ‐ Global Assessment of Functioning

Mental state scales:
BPRS ‐ Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale
PANSS ‐ Positive and Negative Symptom Scale
MADRS ‐ Montgomery‐Asberg Depression Rating Scale

Side effect scales:
ESRS ‐ Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Ir a:

estudios incluidos
estudios en curso

Study	Reason for exclusion
Breier 2000	Allocation: random ‐ no further details. Participants: acutely agitated schizophrenic people, not specifically those with first episode schizophrenia.
Dellva 1998	Allocation: random ‐ no further details . Participants: people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder or schizoaffective disorder, no people with a first episode of schizophrenia.
Denney 2001	Allocation: unclear, probably randomised. Participants: chronically ill schizophrenic people, not specifically those with first episode schizophrenia.
Ferrari 1997	Allocation: random ‐ no further details. Participants: people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia (DSM‐III‐R), no people with a first episode of schizophrenia.
Fischer 2000	Allocation: unclear, probably randomised. Participants: people with a diagnosis of chronic residual schizophrenia, no people with a first episode of schizophrenia.
Gutierrez 1996	Allocation: unclear. Participants: people with chronic schizophrenia, no people with a first episode of schizophrenia.
Haffmans 1996	Allocation: unclear, probably randomised. Participants: clinically stable schizophrenic outpatients wtihout acute psychotic symptoms, no people with a first episode of schizophrenia.
Hamilton 2000	Allocation: random ‐ no further details. Participants: people with schizophrenia, not specifically those with first episode schizophrenia.
Kalali 2000	Allocation: random ‐ no further details. Participants: people with psychotic disorders, no people with a first episode of schizophrenia.
Kenny 1992	Allocation: unclear. Participants: treatment resistant schizophrenic people, no people with a first episode of schizophrenia.
Keshavan 1998	Allocation: not randomised.
Kinon 1999	Allocation: random ‐ no further details. Participants: outpatients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who were clinically stable, no people with a first episode of schizophrenia.
Kinon 2001	Allocation: random ‐ no further details. Participants: schizophrenic people, probably not those with first episode schizophrenia . Interventions: olanzapine 5mg/d vs 10mg/d vs 15 mg/d.
Lam 2001	Allocation: random ‐ no further details. Participants: schizophrenic people, probably not those with first episode schizophrenia. Interventions: generic clozapine vs Clozaril.
Lee 1999	Allocation: random ‐ no further details. Participants: people with recent onset, neuroleptic‐responsive schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, not those with first episode schizophrenia.
Lemmer 2001	Allocation: unclear. Participants: people with acute paranoid halluzinatory schizophrenia, no first episode schizophrenic persons.
Magnuson 2001	Allocation: unclear. Participants: children and adolescents with psychotic conditions (schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, psychotic disorder not otherwise specified), no first episode schizophrenic patients.
Mahmoud 1998	Allocation: random ‐ no further details. Participants: schizophrenic people during relapse relapse, not clearly people in their first episode.
Malla 2001	Allocation: matched, not randomised.
McGlashan 1999	Allocation: random ‐ no further details. Participants: people with prodromal, prepsychotic symptoms, no people with a first episode of schizophrenia.
McGorry 1999	Allocation: random ‐ no further details. Participants: young people wtih an "at risk mental state", no people with a first episode of schizophrenia.
Meltzer 2000	Allocation: unclear. Participants: people with chronic, stable schizophrenia, no people with a first episode of schizophrenia.
Merlo 2000	Allocation: random ‐ no further details. Participants: people with a first episode of schizophrenia, schizophreniform or schizoaffective disorder. Interventions: risperidone 2 mg vs risperidone 4 mg.
Mockler 1999	Allocation: unclear. Participants: schizophrenic people and healthy volunteers, no people with a first episode of schizophrenia.
Purdon 2000	Allocation: random ‐ no further details. Participants: people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia who were within 5 years of their first exposure to neuroleptic medication, not specifically those with first episode schizophrenia.
Ramaekers 1999	Allocation: random ‐ no further details. Participants: healthy volunteers.
Rein 1997	Allocation: unclear, probably randomised. Participants: people with predominantly negative deficit symptoms of schizophrenia, no people with a first episode of schizophrenia.
Robinson 2000	Allocation: random ‐ no further details. Participants: people with stable schizophrenia, no people with a first episode of schizophrenia.
Sanger 1997	Allocation: random ‐ no further details. Participants: schizophrenic people, no people with a first episode of schizophrenia.
Schooler 1997	Allocation: unclear, probably randomised. Participants: schizophrenic people, not specifically those with first episode schizophrenia.
Schooler 2000	Allocation: randomised to one of three dosing schedules. Participants: outpatients with stable schizophrenia, no first episode schizophrenic persons.
Schulz 1997	Allocation: unclear. Participants: young people with a diagnosis of chronic schizophrenia (80%).
Singh 2000	Allocation: random ‐ no further details. Participants: people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizophreniform disorder, no people with a first episode of schizophrenia.
Smith 1998	Allocation: unclear, probably randomised. Participants: chronically hospitalized schizophrenic people, no people with a first episode of schizophrenia.
Swift 1998	Allocation: random ‐ no further details. Participants: people with psychotic disorder, not specifically those with first episode schizophrenia.
Szulecka 2000	Allocation: random ‐ no further details. Participants: people with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia.
Tamminga 1994	Allocation: unclear. Participants: schizophrenic people with tardive dyskinesia, no people with a first episode of schizophrenia.
Wright 2000	Allocation: random ‐ no further details. Participants: acutely agitated people with schizophrenia, not specifically those with first episode schizophrenia.

Characteristics of ongoing studies [ordered by study ID]

Ir a:

estudios incluidos
estudios excluidos

Gaebel 2000

Trial name or title	Pharmacological long‐term treatment strategies for relapse prevention in first episode schizophrenia.
Methods
Participants	First treatment year: 140 patients with first episode in schizophrenia. Second treatment year: 71 patients with first episode in schizophrenia after one year under maintenance neuroleptic treatment.
Interventions	First treatment year: 1. Risperidone. 2. Haloperidol. Second treatment year: 1. Maintenance Treatment. 2. Drug discontinuation. Each with prodrome based early intervention.
Outcomes	Relapse. Rehospitalisation. Psychopathology (HAMD, CDSS, PANSS, SANS, CGI, YMRS). Adverse events (AIMS, EPS, HAS, UKU). Social functioning. Quality of life (LQLP). Neurocognitive funtioning.
Starting date	December 2000
Contact information	Prof. Dr. W. Gaebel, Department of Psychiatry, Heinrich‐Heine‐University Düsseldorf, Rhineland State Clinics Düsseldorf, Bergische Landstr. 2, 40629 Düsseldorf, Germany. wolfgang.gaebel@uni‐duesseldorf.de
Notes

Kane 2001

Trial name or title	Preventing morbidity in first‐episode schizophrenia
Methods
Participants	Patients with a first episode of schizophrenia.
Interventions	1. Olanzapine. 2. Risperidone. 3. Ziprasidone.
Outcomes	Psychopathology (positive, negative and affective symptoms). Side effects. Neurocognition (executive function, memory, attention). Social and occupational function. Service utilization.
Starting date
Contact information	John M. Kane, MD, 75‐29 263rd St., Glen Oaks, New York, 11004, United States.
Notes

Möller 2000

Trial name or title	Optimization of acute treatment in first episode schizophrenic patients by new pharmacological treatments.
Methods
Participants	360 people with a first episode of schizophrenia
Interventions	1. Risperidone 2. Haloperidol
Outcomes	Psychopathology (HAMD, CDSS, PANSS, SANS, CGI, YMRS). Adverse events (UKU, EPS, HAS, AIMS).
Starting date	November 2000
Contact information	Prof. Dr. Hans‐Jürgen Möller, Department of Psychiatry, Ludwig‐Maximilians‐University Munich, Nussbaumstr. 7, 80336 Munich, Germany. hans‐[email protected]‐muenchen.de
Notes

Reveley 2000

Trial name or title	Ris‐int‐35 a double blind evaluation of risperidone versus haloperidol on the long‐term morbidity of early psychotic patients.
Methods
Participants	26 people with a diagnosis of early psychotic symptoms.
Interventions	1. Risperidone. 2. Haloperidol.
Outcomes	Relapse. Morbidity.
Starting date
Contact information	Department of Psychiatry, Clinical Sciences Building, University of Leicester, Leicester Royal Infirmary, PO BOX 65, LE2 7LX, United Kingdom.
Notes

Rosebush 2000

Trial name or title	Olanzapine versus haloperidol in randomised trials of first‐episode patients with schizophrenia.
Methods
Participants	People with first‐episode schizophrenia.
Interventions	1. Olanzapine. 2. Haloperdol.
Outcomes	Neurological and other side effects.
Starting date
Contact information	Rosebush, Mazurek, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Notes

Schooler 1997a

Trial name or title	The FutuRis study ‐ a prospective long‐term evaluation of risperidone versus haloperidol in early psychosis patients.
Methods
Participants	500 people with early psychosis.
Interventions	1. Risperidone 1‐4 mg/d. 2. Haloperidol 1‐4 mg/d.
Outcomes	PANSS. CGI. Cognitive function.
Starting date
Contact information	Dept Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Notes

Sharma 2000

Trial name or title	A double‐blind evaluation of risperidone versus haloperidol on the long‐term morbidity of early psychotic patients.
Methods
Participants	Approximately 35 people with first episode psychotic disorder.
Interventions	1. Risperidone. 2. Haloperidol.
Outcomes
Starting date
Contact information	Dept of Psychological Medicine, Instiute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 8AF.
Notes

Sharma 2000a

Trial name or title	The acute and long‐term efficacy of olanzapine in first‐episode psychotic disorders: a randomised double‐blind comparison with haloperidol.
Methods
Participants	People with first episode psychotic disorders.
Interventions	1. Olanzapine. 2. Haloperidol.
Outcomes
Starting date
Contact information	Forest Healthcare NHS Trust, Whipps Cross Hospital, Whipps Cross Road, London, E11 1NR, England.
Notes

Global effect scales:
CGI ‐ Clinical Global Impression

Mental state scales:
PANSS ‐ Positive and Negative Symptoms Scale
SANS ‐ Scale for Assessment of Negative Symptoms
HAMD ‐ Hamilton Depression Scale
CDSS ‐ Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia
YMRS ‐ Young Mania Rating Scale

Side effect scales:
AIMS ‐ Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale
BAS ‐ Barnes Akathisia Scale
HAS ‐ Hillside Akathisia Scale
SAS ‐ Simpson and Angus Scale
UKU ‐ UKU Side effect Scale

Quality of Life:
LQLP ‐ Lancashire Quality of Life Profile

Data and analyses

Open in table viewer

Comparison 1. NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL)

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Leaving the study early due to any reason Show forest plot	2		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
Open in figure viewer Analysis 1.1 Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 1 Leaving the study early due to any reason.
1.1 due to any reason ‐ olanzapine	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.43 [0.26, 0.73]
1.2 due to any reason ‐ risperidone	1	183	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.65 [0.39, 1.08]
1.3 due to adverse effects ‐ olanzapine	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.10 [0.01, 0.86]
1.4 due to adverse effects ‐ risperidone	1	183	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.34 [0.14, 0.84]
2 Global state: 1. No clinically significant change (CGI < much improved) Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
Open in figure viewer Analysis 1.2 Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 2 Global state: 1. No clinically significant change (CGI < much improved).
2.1 risperidone	1	183	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.98 [0.63, 1.54]
3 Global state: 2. Need of additional medication (at least one dose of benzodiazepine) Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
Open in figure viewer Analysis 1.3 Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 3 Global state: 2. Need of additional medication (at least one dose of benzodiazepine).
3.1 olanzapine	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.76 [0.52, 1.11]
4 Mental state: 1. General a. No clinically significant improvement ‐ as defined by each of the studies Show forest plot	2		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
Open in figure viewer Analysis 1.4 Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 4 Mental state: 1. General a. No clinically significant improvement ‐ as defined by each of the studies.
4.1 olanzapine	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.45 [0.29, 0.71]
4.2 risperidone	1	183	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.85 [0.60, 1.21]
5 Mental state: 1. General b. Various measures of change Show forest plot	2		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
Open in figure viewer Analysis 1.5 Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 5 Mental state: 1. General b. Various measures of change.
5.1 less than 50% PANSS reduction (risperidone)	1	183	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.85 [0.60, 1.21]
5.2 less than 40% PANSS reduction (olanzapine)	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.45 [0.29, 0.71]
5.3 less than 50% BPRS reduction (risperidone)	1	183	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.78 [0.55, 1.12]
6 Mental state: 1. General c. Average change (PANSS endpoint, low=poor) Show forest plot	2		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
Open in figure viewer Analysis 1.6 Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 6 Mental state: 1. General c. Average change (PANSS endpoint, low=poor).
6.1 olanzapine	1	82	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐11.2 [‐20.16, ‐2.24]
6.2 risperidone	1	182	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐1.60 [‐8.81, 5.61]
7 Mental state: 1. General d. Average change (BPRS endpoint, low=poor) Show forest plot	2		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
Open in figure viewer Analysis 1.7 Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 7 Mental state: 1. General d. Average change (BPRS endpoint, low=poor).
7.1 olanzapine	1	82	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐7.80 [‐13.35, ‐2.25]
7.2 risperidone	1	182	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐1.10 [‐5.27, 3.07]
8 Mental state: 2. Specific a. Positive symptoms ‐ average change (PANSS positive subscore endpoint, low=poor) Show forest plot	2		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
Open in figure viewer Analysis 1.8 Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 8 Mental state: 2. Specific a. Positive symptoms ‐ average change (PANSS positive subscore endpoint, low=poor).
8.1 olanzapine	1	82	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐3.40 [‐6.34, ‐0.46]
8.2 risperidone	1	182	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.10 [‐2.18, 1.98]
9 Mental state: 2. Specific b. Positive symptoms ‐ average change (BPRS positive subscore endpoint, low=poor) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
Open in figure viewer Analysis 1.9 Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 9 Mental state: 2. Specific b. Positive symptoms ‐ average change (BPRS positive subscore endpoint, low=poor).
9.1 olanzapine	1	82	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐1.30 [‐3.28, 0.68]
10 Mental state: 2. Specific c. Negative symptoms ‐ average change (PANSS negative subscore endpoint, low=poor) Show forest plot	2		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
Open in figure viewer Analysis 1.10 Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 10 Mental state: 2. Specific c. Negative symptoms ‐ average change (PANSS negative subscore endpoint, low=poor).
10.1 olanzapine	1	82	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐2.7 [‐5.41, 0.01]
10.2 risperidone	1	182	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.5 [‐2.58, 1.58]
11 Mental state: 2. Specific d. Negative symptoms ‐ average change (BPRS negative subscore endpoint, low=poor) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
Open in figure viewer Analysis 1.11 Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 11 Mental state: 2. Specific d. Negative symptoms ‐ average change (BPRS negative subscore endpoint, low=poor).
11.1 olanzapine	1	82	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐1.60 [‐3.10, ‐0.10]
12 Mental state: 2. Specific e. Depressive symptoms ‐ average change (MADRS endpoint, low=poor) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
Open in figure viewer Analysis 1.12 Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 12 Mental state: 2. Specific e. Depressive symptoms ‐ average change (MADRS endpoint, low=poor).
12.1 olanzapine	1	66	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐2.90 [‐7.01, 1.21]
13 Adverse events: 1. General a. At least one adverse event Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
Open in figure viewer Analysis 1.13 Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 13 Adverse events: 1. General a. At least one adverse event.
13.1 risperidone	1	183	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.86 [0.76, 0.98]
14 Adverse events: 2. Extrapyramdial problems a. General i. Needing anticholinergic medication at least once Show forest plot	2		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
Open in figure viewer Analysis 1.14 Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 14 Adverse events: 2. Extrapyramdial problems a. General i. Needing anticholinergic medication at least once.
14.1 olanzapine	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.33 [0.15, 0.72]
14.2 risperidone	1	183	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.67 [0.53, 0.85]
15 Adverse events: 2. Extrapyramdial problems a. General ii. Not improved (SAS total >3) Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
Open in figure viewer Analysis 1.15 Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 15 Adverse events: 2. Extrapyramdial problems a. General ii. Not improved (SAS total >3).
15.1 olanzapine	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.37 [0.17, 0.79]
16 Adverse events: 2. Extrapyramdial problems a. General iii. Average change (SAS, low=poor) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
Open in figure viewer Analysis 1.16 Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 16 Adverse events: 2. Extrapyramdial problems a. General iii. Average change (SAS, low=poor).
16.1 olanzapine	1	83	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐5.0 [‐8.08, ‐1.92]
17 Adverse events: 2. Extrapyramdial problems b. Specific i. Akathisia Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
Open in figure viewer Analysis 1.17 Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 17 Adverse events: 2. Extrapyramdial problems b. Specific i. Akathisia.
17.1 olanzapine	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.17 [0.05, 0.62]
18 Adverse events: 2. Extrapyramdial problems b. Specific ii. Akathisia ‐ average change (BAS, low=poor) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
Open in figure viewer Analysis 1.18 Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 18 Adverse events: 2. Extrapyramdial problems b. Specific ii. Akathisia ‐ average change (BAS, low=poor).
18.1 olanzapine	1	83	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.6 [‐1.12, ‐0.08]
19 Adverse Events: 2. Extrapyramdial problems b. Specific iii. Others Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
Open in figure viewer Analysis 1.19 Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 19 Adverse Events: 2. Extrapyramdial problems b. Specific iii. Others.
19.1 extrapyramidal syndrome ‐ olanzapine	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.27 [0.05, 1.52]
19.2 hypertonia ‐ olanzapine	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.29 [0.10, 0.83]
19.3 hypokinesia ‐ olanzapine	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.05 [0.00, 0.83]
20 Adverse events: 3. Others Show forest plot	2		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
Open in figure viewer Analysis 1.20 Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 20 Adverse events: 3. Others.
20.1 agitation ‐ risperidone	1	183	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.75 [0.30, 1.87]
20.2 anxiety/nervousness ‐ risperidone	1	183	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.97 [0.37, 2.56]
20.3 anxiety/nervousness ‐ olanzapine	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.27 [0.05, 1.52]
20.4 asthenia ‐ olanzapine	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	7.92 [0.48, 130.88]
20.5 dizzyness ‐ olanzapine	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.44 [0.31, 19.21]
20.6 headache ‐ olanzapine	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	7.92 [0.48, 130.88]
20.7 headache ‐ risperidone	1	183	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.06 [0.44, 2.56]
20.8 insomnia ‐ olanzapine	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.22 [0.36, 4.12]
20.9 insomnia ‐ risperidone	1	183	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.65 [0.30, 1.41]
20.10 somnolence ‐ olanzapine	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	9.58 [0.59, 156.45]

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 1 Leaving the study early due to any reason.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 2 Global state: 1. No clinically significant change (CGI < much improved).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 3 Global state: 2. Need of additional medication (at least one dose of benzodiazepine).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 4 Mental state: 1. General a. No clinically significant improvement ‐ as defined by each of the studies.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 5 Mental state: 1. General b. Various measures of change.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 6 Mental state: 1. General c. Average change (PANSS endpoint, low=poor).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 7 Mental state: 1. General d. Average change (BPRS endpoint, low=poor).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 8 Mental state: 2. Specific a. Positive symptoms ‐ average change (PANSS positive subscore endpoint, low=poor).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 9 Mental state: 2. Specific b. Positive symptoms ‐ average change (BPRS positive subscore endpoint, low=poor).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 10 Mental state: 2. Specific c. Negative symptoms ‐ average change (PANSS negative subscore endpoint, low=poor).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 11 Mental state: 2. Specific d. Negative symptoms ‐ average change (BPRS negative subscore endpoint, low=poor).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 12 Mental state: 2. Specific e. Depressive symptoms ‐ average change (MADRS endpoint, low=poor).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 13 Adverse events: 1. General a. At least one adverse event.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 14 Adverse events: 2. Extrapyramdial problems a. General i. Needing anticholinergic medication at least once.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 15 Adverse events: 2. Extrapyramdial problems a. General ii. Not improved (SAS total >3).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 16 Adverse events: 2. Extrapyramdial problems a. General iii. Average change (SAS, low=poor).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.17

Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 17 Adverse events: 2. Extrapyramdial problems b. Specific i. Akathisia.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.18

Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 18 Adverse events: 2. Extrapyramdial problems b. Specific ii. Akathisia ‐ average change (BAS, low=poor).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.19

Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 19 Adverse Events: 2. Extrapyramdial problems b. Specific iii. Others.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.20

Comparison 1 NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL), Outcome 20 Adverse events: 3. Others.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1. NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL)

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Leaving the study early due to any reason Show forest plot	2		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

1.1 due to any reason ‐ olanzapine	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.43 [0.26, 0.73]
1.2 due to any reason ‐ risperidone	1	183	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.65 [0.39, 1.08]
1.3 due to adverse effects ‐ olanzapine	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.10 [0.01, 0.86]
1.4 due to adverse effects ‐ risperidone	1	183	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.34 [0.14, 0.84]
2 Global state: 1. No clinically significant change (CGI < much improved) Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

2.1 risperidone	1	183	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.98 [0.63, 1.54]
3 Global state: 2. Need of additional medication (at least one dose of benzodiazepine) Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

3.1 olanzapine	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.76 [0.52, 1.11]
4 Mental state: 1. General a. No clinically significant improvement ‐ as defined by each of the studies Show forest plot	2		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

4.1 olanzapine	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.45 [0.29, 0.71]
4.2 risperidone	1	183	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.85 [0.60, 1.21]
5 Mental state: 1. General b. Various measures of change Show forest plot	2		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

5.1 less than 50% PANSS reduction (risperidone)	1	183	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.85 [0.60, 1.21]
5.2 less than 40% PANSS reduction (olanzapine)	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.45 [0.29, 0.71]
5.3 less than 50% BPRS reduction (risperidone)	1	183	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.78 [0.55, 1.12]
6 Mental state: 1. General c. Average change (PANSS endpoint, low=poor) Show forest plot	2		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

6.1 olanzapine	1	82	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐11.2 [‐20.16, ‐2.24]
6.2 risperidone	1	182	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐1.60 [‐8.81, 5.61]
7 Mental state: 1. General d. Average change (BPRS endpoint, low=poor) Show forest plot	2		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

7.1 olanzapine	1	82	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐7.80 [‐13.35, ‐2.25]
7.2 risperidone	1	182	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐1.10 [‐5.27, 3.07]
8 Mental state: 2. Specific a. Positive symptoms ‐ average change (PANSS positive subscore endpoint, low=poor) Show forest plot	2		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

8.1 olanzapine	1	82	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐3.40 [‐6.34, ‐0.46]
8.2 risperidone	1	182	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.10 [‐2.18, 1.98]
9 Mental state: 2. Specific b. Positive symptoms ‐ average change (BPRS positive subscore endpoint, low=poor) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

9.1 olanzapine	1	82	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐1.30 [‐3.28, 0.68]
10 Mental state: 2. Specific c. Negative symptoms ‐ average change (PANSS negative subscore endpoint, low=poor) Show forest plot	2		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

10.1 olanzapine	1	82	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐2.7 [‐5.41, 0.01]
10.2 risperidone	1	182	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.5 [‐2.58, 1.58]
11 Mental state: 2. Specific d. Negative symptoms ‐ average change (BPRS negative subscore endpoint, low=poor) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

11.1 olanzapine	1	82	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐1.60 [‐3.10, ‐0.10]
12 Mental state: 2. Specific e. Depressive symptoms ‐ average change (MADRS endpoint, low=poor) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

12.1 olanzapine	1	66	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐2.90 [‐7.01, 1.21]
13 Adverse events: 1. General a. At least one adverse event Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

13.1 risperidone	1	183	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.86 [0.76, 0.98]
14 Adverse events: 2. Extrapyramdial problems a. General i. Needing anticholinergic medication at least once Show forest plot	2		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

14.1 olanzapine	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.33 [0.15, 0.72]
14.2 risperidone	1	183	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.67 [0.53, 0.85]
15 Adverse events: 2. Extrapyramdial problems a. General ii. Not improved (SAS total >3) Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

15.1 olanzapine	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.37 [0.17, 0.79]
16 Adverse events: 2. Extrapyramdial problems a. General iii. Average change (SAS, low=poor) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

16.1 olanzapine	1	83	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐5.0 [‐8.08, ‐1.92]
17 Adverse events: 2. Extrapyramdial problems b. Specific i. Akathisia Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

17.1 olanzapine	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.17 [0.05, 0.62]
18 Adverse events: 2. Extrapyramdial problems b. Specific ii. Akathisia ‐ average change (BAS, low=poor) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

18.1 olanzapine	1	83	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.6 [‐1.12, ‐0.08]
19 Adverse Events: 2. Extrapyramdial problems b. Specific iii. Others Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

19.1 extrapyramidal syndrome ‐ olanzapine	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.27 [0.05, 1.52]
19.2 hypertonia ‐ olanzapine	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.29 [0.10, 0.83]
19.3 hypokinesia ‐ olanzapine	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.05 [0.00, 0.83]
20 Adverse events: 3. Others Show forest plot	2		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

20.1 agitation ‐ risperidone	1	183	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.75 [0.30, 1.87]
20.2 anxiety/nervousness ‐ risperidone	1	183	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.97 [0.37, 2.56]
20.3 anxiety/nervousness ‐ olanzapine	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.27 [0.05, 1.52]
20.4 asthenia ‐ olanzapine	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	7.92 [0.48, 130.88]
20.5 dizzyness ‐ olanzapine	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.44 [0.31, 19.21]
20.6 headache ‐ olanzapine	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	7.92 [0.48, 130.88]
20.7 headache ‐ risperidone	1	183	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.06 [0.44, 2.56]
20.8 insomnia ‐ olanzapine	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.22 [0.36, 4.12]
20.9 insomnia ‐ risperidone	1	183	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.65 [0.30, 1.41]
20.10 somnolence ‐ olanzapine	1	83	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	9.58 [0.59, 156.45]

Comparison 1. NEW GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS versus CONVENTIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (HALOPERIDOL)

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

	Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane Escoja su idioma de preferencia para las revisiones Cochrane y otros contenidos. Las secciones sin una traducción aparecerán en inglés.

	Idioma de la web Escoja su idioma de preferencia para la web de la Biblioteca Cochrane.

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Referencias

References to studies included in this review

Emsley 1999 {published data only}

Sanger 1999 {published data only}

References to studies excluded from this review

Breier 2000 {published data only}

Dellva 1998 {published data only}

Denney 2001 {published data only}

Ferrari 1997 {published data only}

Fischer 2000 {published data only}

Gutierrez 1996 {published data only}

Haffmans 1996 {published data only}

Hamilton 2000 {published data only}

Kalali 2000 {published data only}

Kenny 1992 {published data only}

Keshavan 1998 {published data only}

Kinon 1999 {published data only}

Kinon 2001 {published data only}

Lam 2001 {published data only}

Lee 1999 {published data only}

Lemmer 2001 {published data only}

Magnuson 2001 {published data only}

Mahmoud 1998 {published data only}

Malla 2001 {published data only}

McGlashan 1999 {published data only}

McGorry 1999 {published data only}

Meltzer 2000 {published data only}

Merlo 2000 {published data only}

Mockler 1999 {published data only}

Purdon 2000 {published data only}

Ramaekers 1999 {published data only}

Rein 1997 {published data only}

Robinson 2000 {published data only}

Sanger 1997 {published data only}

Schooler 1997 {published data only}

Schooler 2000 {published data only}

Schulz 1997 {published data only}

Singh 2000 {published data only}

Smith 1998 {published data only}

Swift 1998 {published data only}

Szulecka 2000 {published data only}

Tamminga 1994 {published data only}

Wright 2000 {published data only}

References to studies awaiting assessment

Edwards 1999 {published data only}

Glenthoj 2001 {published data only}

Gordon 1994 {published data only}

Jarboe 2001 {published data only}

Keefe 2001 {published data only}

Kumra 1996 {published data only}

Lavalaye 1999 {published data only}

Lieberman 2000 {published data only}

Lieberman 2001 {published data only}

van Bruggen 1999 {published data only}

References to ongoing studies

Gaebel 2000 {unpublished data only}

Kane 2001 {published data only}

Möller 2000 {unpublished data only}

Reveley 2000 {published data only}

Rosebush 2000 {published data only}

Schooler 1997a {published data only}

Sharma 2000 {published data only}

Sharma 2000a {published data only}

Additional references

Allison 1999

Allison 2001

Altman 1996

Arnt 1998

Bagnall 2002

Barnes 1989

Begg 1996

Bland 1997

Boissel 1999

Bottlender 2003

Chouinard 1980

Clarke 2000

Curtis 1995

Deeks 2000