Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Diclorhidrato de zuclopentixol para la esquizofrenia

Esta versión no es la más reciente

ver la versión actual 16 noviembre 2017
Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Referencias

Referencias de los estudios incluidos en esta revisión

Ir a:

Aaes‐Jorgensen 1981b {published data only}

Aaes‐Jorgensen T, Gravem A, Jorgensen A. Serum levels of the isomers of clopenthixol in patients given cis(Z)‐clopenthixol or cis(Z)‐trans(E)‐clopenthixol. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Supplementum 1981;294:70‐7. [MEDLINE: 82178887; PMID 6951396]

Balasubramanian 1991 {published data only}

Balasubramanian K, Baloch N, Briscoe MH, Chattree S, Cooper CJ, Durani SK, Judge R, Gunawardena VR, Mahadevan K Mann, BS Pandita, Patel AG, Saleem PT, Sekhawat BS, Suri AK. A double blind multicentre comparison of oral zuclopenthixol and oral chlorpromazine in the treatment of acute psychosis. British Journal of Clinical Research 1991;n/a:149‐56. [MEDLINE: 69006168; PMID 5600894]

Ban 1975 {published data only}

Ban TA, Lehmann HE, Sterlin C, Climan M. Comprehensive clinical studies with thiothixene. Diseases of the Nervous System 1975;36(9):473‐7. [MEDLINE: 76021805; PMID 240651]
Lehmann HE, Ban TA. Thiothixene versus chlorprothixene versus clopenthixol. Psychopharmacology Bulletin 1970;6(4):118‐120. [13027]

Dehnel 1968 {published data only}

Dehnel LL, Vestre ND, Schiele BC. A controlled comparison of clopenthixol and perphenazine in a chronic schizophrenic population. Current Therapeutic Research Clinical and Experimental 1968;10:169‐76. [MEDLINE: 68242121; PMID 4967871]

Fischer 1976 {published data only}

Fischer‐Cornelssen KA, Ferner UJ. An example of European multicentre trials: multispectral analysis of clozapine. Psychopharmacology Bulletin 1976;12:34‐9.

Galderisi 1994 {published data only}

Galderisi S, Maj M, Mucci A, Bucci P, Kemali D. QEEG alpha1 changes after a single dose of high‐potency neuroleptics as a predictor of short‐term response to treatment in schizophrenic patients. Biological Psychiatry 1994;35(6):367‐74. [MEDLINE: 94289546; EMBASE 1994114037; PMID 8018782]

Gravem 1978 {published data only}

Gravem A, Engstrand E, Guleng RJ. Cis(Z)‐clopenthixol and clopenthixol (Sordinol) in chronic psychotic patients. A double‐blind clinical investigation.. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 1978;58(5):384‐8. [MEDLINE: 79058923; PMID 362830]

Gravem 1981 {published data only}

Gravem A, Bugge A. Cis(Z)‐clopenthixol and clopenthixol in the treatment of acute psychoses and exacerbations of chronic psychoses. A double‐blind clinical investigation. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Supplementum 1981;294:13‐24. [MEDLINE: 82178878; PMID 7041515]

Heikkila 1981a {published data only}

Heikkila L, Karsten D, Valli K. A double‐blind clinical investigation of cis(Z)‐clopenthixol and clopenthixol in chronic schizophrenic patients. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Supplementum 1981;294:25‐9. [MEDLINE: 82178880; PMID 7041516]

Heikkila 1981b {published data only}

Heikkila L, Laitinen J, Vartiainen H. Cis(Z)‐clopenthixol and haloperidol in chronic schizophrenic patients ‐ a double‐blind clinical multicentre investigation. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Supplementum 1981;294:30‐8. [MEDLINE: 82178881; PMID 7041517]

Heikkila 1992 {published data only}

Heikkila L, Eliander H, Vartiainen H, Turunen M, Pedersen V. Zuclopenthixol and haloperidol in patients with acute psychotic states. A double‐blind, multicentre study. Current Medical Research and Opinion 1992;12(9):594‐603. [EMBASE 1992128093]

Huttunen 1995 {published data only}

Huttunen MO, Piepponen T, Rantanen H, Larmo I, Nyholm R, Raitasuo V. Risperidone versus zuclopenthixol in the treatment of acute schizophrenic episodes: a double‐blind parallel‐group trial.. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 1995;91(4):271‐7.
Huttunen MO, Piepponen T. Risperidone versus zuclopenthixol in the treatment of acute schizophrenic episodes. European Psychiatry 1994;9(Suppl 1):85.
Moller HJ, Huttunen MO. The prevalence of extrapyramidal symptoms during short and long term treatment with risperidone. 7th Biennial European Winter Workshop on Schizophrenia; 1994 Jan 23‐28; Les Diablerets, Switzerland 1994;11(2):106. [MEDLINE: 94001724; PMID 8104468]

Kingstone 1970 {published data only}

Kingstone E, Kolivakis T, Kossatz I. Double blind study of clopenthixol and chlorpromazine in acute hospitalized schizophrenics. Internationale Zeitschrift Fur Klinische Pharmakologie Therapie und Toxikologie 1970;3(1):41‐5. [MEDLINE: 70164847; PMID 4909377]

Kordas 1968 {published data only}

Kordas SK, Kazamias NG, Georgas JG, Papadokostakis JG. Clopenthixol: a controlled trial in chronic hospitalized schizophrenic patients. British Journal of Psychiatry 1968;114(512):833‐6. [MEDLINE: 68329665; PMID 4874163]

Mahadevan 1991 {published data only}

Mahadevan K, Gadhvi HM, Suri AK, Hussain MF, Sharma VK, Sharma SK, Palia SS, Mukherjee PK, Chan Pensley E, Ghoshal J, Ahmed W, Bhatt GS. A multicentre comparison of oral zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride and oral sulpiride in the treatment of acute schizophrenia. British Journal of Clinical Research 1991;2:13‐20. [Cochrane Library CN‐00282616]

Remvig 1987 {published data only}

Remvig J, Larsen H, Rask P, Skausig OB, Skov S, Stromgren LS. Zuclopenthixol and perphenazine in patients with acute psychotic states. A double‐blind multicentre study. Pharmacopsychiatry 1987;20(4):147‐54. [MEDLINE: 87290070; PMID 3615572]

Serafetinides 1972 {published data only}

Serafetinides E A. Voltage laterality in the EEG of psychiatric patients.. Diseases of the Nervous System. 1973;34(3):190‐1. [MEDLINE: 73210072; PsycINFO 1973‐29665‐001; PMID 4715636]
Serafetinides E A, Willis D. A method of quantifying EEG for psychopharmacological research.. International Pharmacopsychiatry. 1973;8(4):245‐7.
Serafetinides EA. Consistency and similarity of drug EEG responses in chronic schizophrenic patients. International Pharmacopsychiatry 1973;8(4):214‐6. [MEDLINE: 74083340; PsycINFO 52‐05954; PMID 4589640]
Serafetinides EA, Clark ML. Psychological effects of single dose antipsychotic medication. Biological Psychiatry 1973;7(3):263‐7. [MEDLINE: 74051947; PsycINFO 52‐03694; PMID 4586833]
Serafetinides EA, Collins S, Clark ML. Haloperidol, clopenthixol, and chlorpromazine in chronic schizophrenia. Chemically unrelated antipsychotics as therapeutic alternatives. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 1972;154(1):31‐42. [MEDLINE: 72081124; PMID 4550211]
Serafetinides EA, Willis D, Clark ML. Haloperidol, clopenthixol, and chlorpromazine in chronic schizophrenia. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 1972;155(5):366‐9. [MEDLINE: 73029970; PMID 4563078]

Sterlin 1972 {published data only}

Sterlin C, Ban TA, Jarrold L. The place of thiothixene among the thioxanthenes. Current Therapeutic Research Clinical and Experimental 1972;14(4):205‐14. [MEDLINE: 72182264; PMID 4623599]

Referencias de los estudios excluidos de esta revisión

Ir a:

Aaes‐Jorgensen 1981a {published data only}

Aaes‐Jorgensen T. Serum concentrations of cis(Z)‐ and trans(E)‐clopenthixol after administration of cis(Z)‐clopenthixol and clopenthixol to human volunteers. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Supplementum 1981;294:64‐9. [MEDLINE: 82178886; PMID 6951395]

Ahlfors 1980 {published data only}

Ahlfors UG, Dencker SJ, Gravem A, Remvig J. Clopenthixol decanoate and perphenazine enanthate in schizophrenic patients. A double‐blind Nordic multicentre trial. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Supplementum 1980;279:77‐91. [MEDLINE: 80262296; PMID 6996426]

Al Haddad 1996 {published data only}

Al Haddad MK, Kamel C, Mawgood MA, Sequeria RP. Zuclopenthixol versus haloperidol in the initial treatment of schizophrenic psychoses,affective psychoses and paranoid states: a controlled clinical trial.. Arab Journal of Psychiatry 1996;7(1):44‐54. [PsycINFO 2001‐16512‐004]

Arango 2002 {published data only}

Arango C, Bombýn I, Bobes´J, Gonzalez‐, Cabeza Garcýa‐, Salvador MT. Prediction and prevention of violence in schizophrenia outpatients: preliminary report. Schizophrenia Research 2002;53(3 Suppl.1):233. [MEDLINE: 2003183416]

Baastrup 1993 {published data only}

Baastrup PC, Alhfors UG, Bjerkenstedt L, Dencker SJ, Fensbo C, Gravem A, Pedersen V, Elgen K, Brekke B, Fredslund‐Andersen K. A controlled Nordic multicentre study of zuclopenthixol acetate in oil solution, haloperidol and zuclopenthixol in the treatment of acute psychosis. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 1993;37(1):48‐58. [MEDLINE: 93142586; PMID 8093824]

Bereen 1987 {published data only}

Bereen FJ, Harte FB, Maguire J, Singh AN. The use of oral zuclopenthixol in the treatment of functional psychotic illness. Pharmatherapeutica 1987;5(1):61‐8.

Bhattacharya 1987 {published data only}

Bhattacharya SN, Ghoshal J, Sharma SK, Halstead N, John B, Launer MA, Mukherjee PK, Zigmond AS. Acute functional psychoses:treatment with zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride ('Clopixol') tablets. Pharmatherapeutica 1987;5(1):1‐8.

Bobon 1989 {published data only}

Bobon D, de Bleeker E. Zuclopenthixol acetate and haloperidol in acute psychotic patients ‐ a randomized multicentre study. 2nd Congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology; 1989 May 24‐26; Gothenburg, Germany. 1989. [MEDLINE: 76021805; PMID 240651]
Bobon D, de Bleeker E. Zuclopenthixol acetate and haloperidol in acute psychotic patients ‐ a randomized multicentre study. New Strategies in the Treatment of Aggressive, Acutely Psychotic Patients. Proceedings of the 8th World Congress of Psychiatry; 1989 October 13‐19, Athens, Greece. Excerpta Medica, 1989:47‐59. [MEDLINE: 76021805; PMID 240651]

Bourdouxhe 1987 {published data only}

Bourdouxhe S, Mirel J, Denys W, Bobon D. Zuclopenthixol acetate and haloperidol in acute psychoses ‐ results of the AMDP subgroup of a Belgian multicenter study [L'acetate de zuclopenthixol et l'haloperidol dans la psychose aigue ‐ Resultats du sous groupe AMDP d'une etude multicentrique belge]. Acta Psychiatrica Belgica 1987;87(2):236‐44. [MEDLINE: 87295330; PsycINFO 26‐73137; PMID 3618274]

Brook 1996 {published data only}

Brook S, Berk M, Selemani S, Kolloori J, Nzo I. A randomised controlled double blind study of zuclopenthixol acetate compared to haloperidol in acute psychosis. 10th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology Congress; 1997 Sep 13‐17; Vienna, Austria. 1997. [MEDLINE: 95351128; PMID 7542829]
Brook S, Berk M, Selemani S, Kolloori J, Nzo I. A randomised controlled double blind study of zuclopenthixol acetate compared to haloperidol in acute psychosis. Unpublished Report submitted to Human Psychopharmacology Clinical and Experimental1996. [MEDLINE: 95351128; PMID 7542829]
Brook S, Berk M, Selemani S, Kolloori J, Nzo I. A randomized controlled double blind study of zuclopenthixol acetate compared to haloperidol in acute psychosis. Human Psychopharmacology 1998;13(1):17‐20. [EMBASE 1998035700]

Burke 2002 {published data only}

Burke JG, Reveley MA. Improved antisaccade performance with risperidone in schizophrenia. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry 2002;72:449‐54.

Chin 1998 {published data only}

Chin CN, Hamid AR, Philip G, Ramlee T, Mahmud M, Zulkifli G, Loh CC, Zakariah MS, Norhamidah MS, Suraya Y, Roslan KA, Chandramohan P, Cheah YC, Leonard AO. A double blind comparison of zuclopenthixol acetate with haloperidol in the management of acutely disturbed schizophrenics. Medical Journal of Malaysia 1998;53(4):365‐71. [MEDLINE: 74083340; PsycINFO 52‐05954; PMID 4589640]

Chouinard 1991 {published data only}

Chouinard G, Safadi G, Beauclair L. A double‐blind controlled study of intramuscular zuclopenthixol acetate and liquid oral haloperidol in the treatment of schizophrenic patients with acute exacerbation. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology 1994;14(6):377‐84. [MEDLINE: 95190073; PMID 7884017]
Chouinard G, Safadi G, Beauclair L. The management of acutely schizophrenic patients newly admitted from the emergency room: a double‐blind clinical trial comparing zuclopenthixol acetate and liquid haloperidol. Modern Trends in the Treatment of Chronic Schizophrenia. Proceedings of a Symposium; 1991 June 10, Florence, Italy. Excerpta Medica, 1991:35‐43. [MEDLINE: 95190073; PMID 7884017]

Clark 1969 {published data only}

Clark. Sordinol versus chlorpromazine versus placebo. Psychopharmacology Bulletin 1969;3:54‐6. [01003]

Den 2000 {published data only}

Den Boer JA, Vahlne J O, Post P, Heck AH, Daubenton F, Olbrich R. Ritanserin as add on medication to neuroleptic therapy for patients with chronic or subchronic schizophrenia. Human Psychopharmacology 2000;15(3):179‐89. [EMBASE 2000170004]

Dencker 1980 {published data only}

Dencker SJ, Lepp M, Malm U. Clopenthixol and flupenthixol depot preparations in outpatient schizophrenics. I. A one year double‐blind study of clopenthixol decanoate and flupenthixol palmitate. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Supplementum 1980;279:10‐28. [MEDLINE: 80262290; PMID 6931470]
Dencker SJ, Malm U, Jorgensen A, Overo KF. Clopenthixol and flupenthixol depot preparations in outpatient schizophrenics. IV. Serum levels and clinical outcome. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Supplementum 1980;279:55‐63. [MEDLINE: 80262294; PMID 6931473]

Dom 1978 {published data only}

Dom R, De Mesmaecker L, van den Broucke M, van Hest T, Baro F. Maintenance treatment of chronic schizophrenic patients. A study with the long‐acting thioxanthene derivative, cis(Z)‐clopenthixol decanoate‐sordinol depot. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 1978;57(4):299‐304. [MEDLINE: 78207721; PMID 352094]

Fagerlund 2003 {published data only}

Fagerlund B, Mackeprang T, Gade A, Glenthoj BY. Effects of risperidone and zuclopenthixol on cognitive deficits in drug‐naive first episode schizophrenic patients. Schizophrenia Research 2003;60:133‐4. [CN‐00394142]

Fensbo 1990 {published data only}

Fensbo C. Zuclopenthixol acetate, haloperidol, and zuclopenthixol in the treatment of acutely psychotic patients ‐ A controlled multicenter study. Meeting of the Scandinavian Society for Psychopharmacology (1989, Copenhagen, Denmark) [Zuclopenthixol acetat, haloperidol og zuclopenthixol i behandling af akut psykotiske patienter. En kontrolleret multicenterundersogelse]. Nordisk Psykiatrisk Tidsskrift 1990;44(3):295‐7. [PsycINFO 28‐73892]

Glenthoj 2000 {published data only}

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. 2000:191. [MEDLINE: 95275743; PMID 7756183]
Glenth¢j 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):133. [PsycINFO 2001‐16512‐004]

Gravem 1990 {published data only}

Gravem A, Elgen K. Cis(Z) clopenthixol. The neuroleptically active isomer of clopenthixol. A presentation of five double blind clinical investigations and other studies with cis(Z) clopenthixol (Cisordinol(R), Clopixol(R)). Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, Supplementum 1981;64(294):5‐12. [MEDLINE: 82178884; PMID 6122337]
Gravem Arne, Tove AJ. Co‐injection of zuclopenthixol acetate and zuclopenthixol decanoate. Nordisk Psykiatrisk Tidsskrift 1990;44(4):403‐5. [PsycINFO 78‐07960]

Hicklin 1967 {published data only}

Hicklin A, Angst J. Retrospective and prospective studies on the clinical effect of clopenthixol (sordinol) in endogenous phychoses [Retrospektive und prospektive Studie uber die klinische Wirkung von Clopenthixol (Sordinol) bei endogenen Psychosen]. Schweizerische Medizinische Wochenschrift. Journal Suisse De Medecine 1967;97(19):615‐21. [MEDLINE: 69006168; PMID 5600894]

Hovens 2003 {published data only}

Hovens JEJM, Beijeman S, Tollenar J, Dries PJT, Loonen AJM. Risperidone versus zuclopenthixol in acute psychosis in emergency psychiatry: a prospective naturalistic study.. Journal of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology. 2003;13(4):S293.

Huang 2001 {published data only}

Huang SH, Pan YH, Wu FY, Qiu YP, et al. Comparison of clopenthixol decanoate to chlorpromazine in the treatment of schizophrenia. Chinese General Practice 2001;4(10):775‐6. [CN‐00393723]

Karsten 1981 {published data only}

Karsten D, Kivimaki T, Linna SL, Pollari L, Turunen S. Neuroleptic treatment of oligophrenic patients. A double‐blind clinical multicentre trial of cis(Z)‐clopenthixol and haloperidol. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Supplementum 1981;294(64):39‐45. [MEDLINE: 82178882; PMID 7041518]

Knegtering 2002a {published data only}

Knegtering H, Castelein S, Van Der Linde J, Bous J. Sexual dysfunctions and serum prolactin levels in patients using risperidone or quetiapine: a randomised trial. Schizophrenia Research 2002;53(3 Suppl 1):163.

Koskinen 1991 {published data only}

Koskinen T, Wistedt B, Thelander S. Zuclopenthixol decanoate vs haloperidol decanoate: a double‐blind comparative trial. 5th World Congress of Biological Psychiatry; 1991 Jun 9‐14; Florence, Italy. 1991:563‐5. [MEDLINE: 95275743; PMID 7756183]

Kristiansen 2001 {published data only}

Kristiansen KT, Mackeprang T, Fink‐Jensen A, Hemmingsen RP, Glenth¢j BY. Effects of antipsychotics and other agents on prepulse inhibition of the starlte response(ppi). Schizophrenia Research 2001;49(1,2):216. [PsycINFO 2001‐16512‐004]

Loza 2001 {published data only}

Loza B, Kucharska‐Pietura K, Debowska G. Atypical versus typical antipsychotic treatment prognosis in first‐episode paranoid schizophrenia based on wcst and dichotic listening scores. European Neuropsychopharmacology (Abstracts of the 14th Congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology; 2001 Oct 13‐17; Istanbul, Turkey) 2001;11(3):285. [14th Congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology [Congress Information System]: Conifer, Excerpta Medica Medical Communications BV, 2001 P2103#]

Lublin 1991 {published data only}

Lublin H, Gerlach J, Hagert U, Meidahl B, Molbjerg C, Pedersen V, Rendtorff C, Tolvanen E. Zuclopenthixol, a combined dopamine D1/D2 antagonist, versus haloperidol, a dopamine D2 antagonist, in tardive dyskinesia. European Neuropsychopharmacology 1991;1(4):541‐8. [EMBASE 1998035700]

Mackeprang 2001 {published data only}

Mackeprang T, Fagerlund B, Videbaek C, Hemmingsen RP, Glenthoj BY. Extrastriatal dopamine(d2/d3)‐receptor occupancy and cognition in first episode schizophrenic patients.. Schizophrenia Research 2001;49(Suppl.1,2):194. [LMD163341]

Malt 1995 {published data only}

Malt UF, Nystad R, Bache T, Noren O, Sjaastad M, Solberg KO, Tonseth S, Zachariassen P, Maehlum E. Effectiveness of zuclopenthixol compared with haloperidol in the treatment of behavioural disturbances in learning disabled patients. British Journal of Psychiatry 1995;166(3):374‐7. [MEDLINE: 95307869; PMID 7788130]

Mann 1985 {published data only}

Mann BS, Moslehuddin KS, Owen RT, Clayton AR, Rohatgi KK, Sud P, Vaddadi KS. A clinical assessment of zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride ('Clopixol Tablets') in the treatment of psychotic illness. Pharmatherapeutica 1985;4(6):386‐392.

Martyns 1993 {published data only}

Martyns Yellowe IS. The decanoates of flupenthixol and clopenthixol in the treatment of chronic schizophrenic in‐patients. Implications for community psychiatry. West African Journal of Medicine 1993;12(2):110‐3. [MEDLINE: 94001724; PMID 8104468]
Martyns‐Yellowe IS. The positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia: patterns of response to depot neuroleptic treatment. West African Journal of Medicine 1994;13(4):200‐3. [MEDLINE: 95275743; PMID 7756183]

Mazurek 2003 {published data only}

Mazurek I, Loza B, Lecyk A. Atypical versus typical antipsychotic treatment prognosis based on veps and wcst scores in paranoid schizophrenia. Journal of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology 2003;13(4):S347. [P.2.156]

Meyers 1972 {published data only}

Meyers C, Lhoas JP, Huvelle R. Rediscovery of a neuroleptic drug in a new form: clopenthixol [Redecouverte d'un neuroleptique sous une autre presentation: le clopenthixol]. Schweizerische Rundschau fur Medizin Praxis 1972;61(26):869‐71. [Cochrane Library CN‐00282616]

Mosolov 2000 {published data only}

Mosolov SN, Molodetskikh AV, Eryomin AV, Graikov GM, Nourislamov SV. Effect and tolerability of Clopixol and haloperidol in patients with acute symptoms of schizophrenia: comparative randomized investigation. Sotsial'Naia I KlinIcheskaia Psikhiatria 2000;10(2):47‐52. [MEDLINE: 68242121; PMID 4967871]

Ropert 1988 {published data only}

Ropert R, Hoepfner Petersen HE, Benyay J. Where zuclopenthixol acetate stands amid the 'modified release' neuroleptics [Place de l'acetate de zuclopenthixol au sein des neuroleptiques a liberation modifiee]. Congres de Psychiatrie et de Neurologie de Langue Francaise, LXXXVIth Session; 1988 Jun 13‐17; Chambery, France. 1988:350‐62. [MEDLINE: 87290070; PMID 3615572]

Saxena 1996 {published data only}

Saxena B. The value of depot neuroleptic injections in the treatment of chronic schizophrenia. Schizophrenia 1996 ‐ Breaking down the Barriers. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference; 1996 Oct 6‐9; Vancouver, Canada. 1996. [MEDLINE: 73210072; PsycINFO 1973‐29665‐001; PMID 4715636]

Schooler 1993 {published data only}

Schooler NR, Keith SJ, Severe JB, Matthews SM. Treatment strategies in schizophrenia: effects of dosage reduction and family management on outcome.. International congress on schizophrenia research 1993;9:260.

Shelton 1969 {published data only}

Shelton WH, Bishop MP, Gallant DM. The Achilles reflex and antipsychotic drugs. Current Therapeutic Research Clinical and Experimental 1969;11(1):22‐6. [MEDLINE: 69084988; PMID 4973850]

Singh 1992 {published data only}

Singh I, Owino WJE. A double‐blind comparison of zuclopenthixol tablets with placebo in the treatment of mentally handicapped in‐patients with associated behavioural disorders.. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 1992;36:541‐9.

Svestka 1986 {published data only}

Svestka J, Nahunek K, Ceskova E. Controlled cross‐over comparison of oxyprothepine and clopenthixol decanoate in the prophylaxis of schizophrenic psychoses. Activitas Nervosa Superior 1986;28(1):35‐6. [PsycINFO 75‐08452]

Syvalahti 1997 {published data only}

Syvalahti EK, Taiminen T, Saarijarvi S, Lehto H, Niemi H, Ahola V, Dahl ML, Salokangas RK. Citalopram causes no significant alterations in plasma neuroleptic levels in schizophrenic patients. Journal of International Medical Research 1997;25(1):24‐32. [MEDLINE: 97179384; PMID 9027670]

Taymeeyapradit 2002 {published data only}

Taymeeyapradit U, Kuasirikul S. Comparative study of the effectiveness of zuclopenthixol acetate and haloperidol in acutely disturbed psychotic patients. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand 2002;85(12):1301‐8. [MEDLINE: 2003183416]

Tegeler 1985 {published data only}

Tegeler J. A comparative trial of Cis(Z)‐clopenthixol‐decanoate and fluphenazine‐decanoate. Pharmacopsychiatry 1985;18(1):78‐9. [MEDLINE: 97179384; PMID 9027670]

Uys 1996 {published data only}

Uys H, Berk M. A controlled double blind study of zuclopenthixol acetate compared to clothiapine in acute psychosis including mania and exacerbation of chronic psychosis. Unpublished Report1996. [MEDLINE: 74083340]
Uys H, Berk M. A controlled double blind study of zuclopenthixol acetate compared with clothiapine in acute psychosis including mania and exacerbation of chronic psychosis. 20th Congress of the Collegium Internationale Neuro‐psychopharmacologicum; 1996 Jun 23‐27; Melbourne, Australia. 1996. [MEDLINE: 74083340; PsycINFO 52‐05954; PMID 4589640]

Venkateswarlu 1990 {published data only}

Venkateswarlu T, Staley CJ, Neal CD. Zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride in the management of behavioural disorders in elderly demented patients:a dose‐ranging study.. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 1990;5:265.

Viala 1988 {published data only}

Viala A, Ba B, Durand A, Gouezo F, Hou N, Jorgensen A. Comparative study of the pharmacokinetics of zuclopenthixol decanoate and fluphenazine decanoate. Psychopharmacology 1988;94(3):293‐7. [MEDLINE: 88190287; PMID 2895936]

Walker 1983 {published data only}

Walker CA. A double‐blind comparative trial of the decanoates of clopenthixol and fluphenazine in the treatment of chronic schizophrenic out‐ patients. Pharmatherapeutica 1983;3(5):289‐93. [MEDLINE: 83195220; PMID 6133287]

Weiser 1975 {published data only}

Weiser G, Tahedl A, Reisecker F, Meyer H. Advantages of the initial therapy of acute schizophrenia with large doses of droperidol/A comparative study (author's transl) [Vorteile der Initialbehandlung akuter Schizophrenien mit hochdosiertem Droperidol. Eine Vergleichsstudie]. Arzneimittel Forschung 1975;25(11):1845‐8. [MEDLINE: 76088237; PMID 1243093]

Wistedt 1991 {published data only}

Wistedt B, Koskinen T, Thelander S, Nerdrum T, Pedersen V, Molbjerg C. Zuclopenthixol decanoate and haloperidol decanoate in chronic schizophrenia: a double‐blind multicentre study. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 1991;84(1):14‐21. [MEDLINE: 92025271; PMID 1681680]

Xiaanao 1999 {published data only}

Xiaanoao G, Jiaju X, Mingshen W. Efficacy of clopenthixol in treating delusions and halucinations in schizophrenia. Journal of Clinical Psychology 1999;9(4):202‐3.

Youssef 1991 {published data only}

Youssef HA. Duration of neuroleptic treatment and relapse rate: a 5‐year follow‐up study with haloperidol decanoate. Clinical Neuropharmacology 1991;14(suppl.2):S16‐S23.

Referencias de los estudios en espera de evaluación

Ir a:

Arango 2006 {published data only}

Arango C, Bombin I, Gonzalez‐Salvador T, Garcia‐Cabeza I, Bobes J. Randomised clinical trial comparing oral versus depot formulations of zuclopenthixol in patients with schizophrenia and previous violence. European Psychiatry 2006;21(1):34‐40. [MEDLINE: 16360311]

Bombin 2004 {published data only}

Bombin I, Arango C. Antipsychotic treatment adherence and violence in schizophrenia outpatients: a randomized prospective trial. European Neuropsychopharmacology 2004;14(Suppl 3):S289.

Glenthoj 2005 {published data only}

Glenthoj B, Glenthoj A, Jagersma E, Pagsberg AK, Hemmingsen RP, Svarer C, et al. Effects of typical and atypical antipsychotic medication on caudate nucleus volume in first‐episode schizophrenic patients: relation to dopamine d2/3 receptor occupancy psychopathology and extrapyramidal side‐effects. Proceedings of the 8th World Congress of Psychiatry; 2005 Sep 10‐15; Cairo, Egypt. 2005.

Glenthoj 2007 {published data only}

Glenthoj A, Glenthoj BY, Mackeprang T, Pagsberg AK, Hemmingsen RP, Jernigan TL, et al. Basal ganglia volumes in drug‐naive first‐episode schizophrenia patients before and after short‐term treatment with either a typical or an atypical antipsychotic drug. Psychiatry Research 2007;154(3):199‐208. [MEDLINE: 17360162]

Glenthoj 2008 {published data only}

Glenthoj B, Fagerlund B, Rasmussen H, Pinborg L, Svarer C, Friberg L, et al. Extrastriatal dopamine D2/D3‐receptors in drug‐naïve first‐episode schizophrenic patients: relation to psychopathology, cognition and treatment outcome. International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology 2008;11(Suppl 1):6‐7.

Lamure 2003 {published data only}

Lamure M, Toumi M, Chabannes J‐P, Dansette G‐Y, Benyaya J, Hansen K. Zuclopenthixol versus haloperidol: an observational randomised pharmacoeconomic evaluation of patients with chronic schizophrenia exhibiting acute psychosis. International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice 2003;7(3):177‐85.

NCT00206960 {published data only}

NCT00206960. Effects of classical and atypical antipsychotics on dopamine receptor binding of 123i‐epidepride, cognition, startle response and extrapyramidal side‐effects in drug‐naive first‐episode schizophrenic patients. http://www.clinicaltrials.gov2005.

Pagsberg 2004 {published data only}

Pagsberg A, Jagersma E, Baare W, Mackeprang T, Glenthoej by. Change in caudate nucleus volume after three‐month treatment in drug‐ naive first‐episode schizophrenia patients. Schizophrenia Research 2004;67(1):99.

Rubio 2005 {published data only}

Rubio G, Martínez‐Gras I, Ponce G, López‐Muñoz F, Alamo C, Jimenez‐Arriero MA, et al. Risperidone versus zuclopenthixol in the treatment of schizophrenia with substance abuse comorbidity: a long‐term controlled study. European Neuropsychopharmacology 2005;15(Suppl 3):S476.

Rubio 2009 {published data only}

Rubio G, Rodriguez‐Jimenez R, Martinez‐Gras I, Jimenez‐Arriero MA, Palomo T. Prepulse inhibition of the startle response in amisulpride‐treated patients: comparison with typical antipsychotics. Proceedings of the 9th World Congress of Biological Psychiatry; 2009 Jun 28‐Jul 2 ;Paris, France. 2009:394.

Rubioz 2006 {published data only}

Rubioz G, Martine I, Recio A, Ponce G, Lopez‐Munoz F, Alamo C, et al. Risperidone versus zuclopenthixol in the treatment of schizophrenia with substance abuse comorbidity: a long‐term RANDOMized, controlled, crossover study. European Journal of Psychiatry 2006;20(3):133‐46.

刘启珍, 2005 {published data only}

刘启珍, 王慧芳, 陈洪来, 刘翠珍. [Title only available in Chinese characters] [氯噻吨与氯丙嗪治疗精神分裂症的对照研究]. Shandong Archives of Psychiatry [山东精神医学] 2005;18(3):175‐6.

Altman 1996

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

Awad 1997

Awad GA, Voruganti LNP, Heslegrave RJ. Measuring quality of life in patients with schizophrenia. Pharmacoeconomics 1997;11:32‐47. 1997;11:32‐47.

Bland 1997

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

Chouinard 1980

Chouinard G, Ross‐Chouinard A, Annable L, Jones BD. The Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale. Canadian Journal of Neurological Science 1980;7:233.

Coutinho 2004

Coutinho E, Fenton M, Quraishi S. Zuclopenthixol decanoate for schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001164]

Dally 1967

Dally P. Chemotherapy of Psychiatric Disorders. London: Logos Press Limited, 1967.

Divine 1992

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.

Donner 2002

Donner A, Klar N. Issues in the meta‐analysis of cluster randomized trials. Statistics in Medicine 2002;21:2971‐80.

Egger 1997

Egger M, Zellweger‐Zähner T, Schneider M, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet 1997;350:326‐9.

Gibson 2004

Gibson R, Fenton M, Coutinho ESF, Campbell C. Zuclopenthixol acetate in the treatment of acute schizophrenia and similar serious mental illnesses. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000525]

Gulliford 1999

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

Guy 1976

Guy U. ECDEU assessment manual for psychopharmacology. Revised. Rockville: National Institute of Mental Health, 1976.

Higgins 2011

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.2 [updated September 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org2011.

Jablensky 1992

Jablensky A, Sartorius N, Ernberg G, Anker M, Korten A, Cooper JE, Day R, Bertelsen A. Schizophrenia: manifestations, incidence and course in different cultures. A World Health Organization ten‐country study. Psychological Medicine 1992;20(Monograph Supplement):1‐97.

Kay 1987

Kay SR, Fiszbein A, Opler LA. The positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin 1987;13:261‐76.

Kozyrev 2003

Kozyrev VN, Smulevich AB, Drobizhev MIu, Kraeva GK, Kubrakov MA. Psychotropic drugs used in a psychiatric hospital (pharmaco‐epidemiologic aspects).. Zh Nevrol Psikhiatr Im S S Korsakova 2003;103(11):25‐32.

Lingjaerde 1987

Lingjaerde O, Ahlfors UG, Bech P, Dencker SJ, Elgen K. The UKU side effect rating scale. A new comprehensive rating scale for psychotropic drugs and a cross‐sectional study of side effects in neuroleptic‐treated patients. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Supplementum 1987;76(334):100.

Mace 2005

Mace S, Taylor D. A prescription survey of antipsychotic use in England and Wales following the introduction of NICE guidance.. International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice 2005;9(2):124‐9.

Marshall 2000

Marshall M, Lockwood A, Adams C, Bradley 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.

Moher 2001

Moher D, Schultz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomised trials. Lancet 2001;357:1191‐4.

Montgomery 1979

Montgomery SA, Asberg M. A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. British Journal of Psychiatry 1979;134:382‐389.

Overall 1962

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

Percudani 2005

Percudani M. Barbui C. Fortino I. Petrovich L. Epidemiology of first‐ and second‐generation antipsychotic agents in Lombardy, Italy.. Pharmacopsychiatry 2005;38(3):128‐31.

Taylor 2000

Taylor D, Kerwin R. Prescribing in schizophrenia. Evaluating the effect of introducing a new treatment protocol. Psychiatric Bulletin 2000;24:106‐8.

Ukoumunne 1999

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]

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Ir a:

Aaes‐Jorgensen 1981b

Methods

Allocation: randomised.
Blindness: double.
Duration: 1 week before crossover.
Design: crossover.
Country: Denmark.

Participants

Diagnosis: paranoid schizophrenia.
History: duration of illness 2 months ‐ 2 years.
N=9.
Age: mean 58 years, range 39‐81.
Sex: all male.
Inclusion criteria: all patients who had been previosly treated with cis(Z)/trans(E)‐clopenthixol (from 2 months to several years).
Setting: not reported.

Interventions

1. Cis(Z)‐clopenthixol hydrochloride: dose range 5‐50 mg/day. N=4.
2. Clopenthixol hydrochloride (cis(Z) and trans(E) forms): dose 10‐100 mg/day. N=5.

Outcomes

Leaving the study early.

Unable to use ‐
Physiological: serum concentrations of Cis(Z)‐clopenthixol and clopenthixol (non‐clinical data all reported post‐crossover).

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Balasubramanian 1991

Methods

Allocation: randomised.
Blindness: double.
Duration: 10 weeks.
Design: multicentre
Country: UK.

Participants

Diagnosis: psychosis, schizophrenia (68), schizoaffective (7), hypomania (4)(RDC).
History: acutely ill / exacerbation of chronic illness, 0‐20 episodes.
N=94.
Age: mean ˜ 37 years, range 18‐65.
Sex: 48 male, 34 female, 1 unspecified.
Inclusion criteria: BPRS 15 or more.
Exclusion criteria: previous intolerance to neuroleptics, additional serious psychiatric or neurological disorder, serious physical ilness, pregnant or lactating women and those of child bearing potential who intend to become pregnant, addiction to drugs or alcohol, depot neuroleptic at an unstable dose or dosing frequency.
Setting: hospital and community.

Interventions

1. Zuclopenthixol: dose range 25‐150 mg/day. N=50.
2. Chlorpromazine: dose range 100‐600mg/day. N=44.

Additional medication: amitriptyline, temazepam, procyclidine.

Outcomes

Leaving the study early.
Global state: CGI.
Adverse effects.

Unable to use ‐
Mental state: BPRS (>50% loss to follow up in one group).
Adverse effects: UKU side effects rating scale (data not reported by group).

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Ban 1975

Methods

Allocation: randomised.
Blindness: double.
Duration: 10 weeks.
Design: single centre.
Country: Canada.

Participants

Diagnosis: schizophrenia.
History: 15 chronically hospitalised and 15 newly admitted.
N=30.
Age: mean 37 years, range 18‐58.
Sex: 13 male, 17 female.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria: not reported.
Setting: hospital.

Interventions

1. Clopenthixol: dose range 50‐200 mg/day. N=10.
2. Thiothixene: dose range 10‐40 mg/day. N=10.
3. Chlorprothixene: dose range 150‐600 mg/day. N=10.

Outcomes

Global state: CGI.
Adverse effects: number of adverse effects in every group.

Unable to use ‐
Mental state: BPRS (data not reported by group).
Behaviour: NOSIE (no data available).
Adverse effects: TESS (no data available).

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Dehnel 1968

Methods

Allocation: randomised.
Blindness: double.
Duration: 12 weeks.
Design: single centre.
Country: USA.

Participants

Diagnosis: chronic schizophrenia.
History: hospitalised schizophrenics with duration of illness 2 months‐23 years.
N=50.
Age: mean ˜ 43 years, range 25‐59.
Sex: all male.
Inclusion criteria: patients under 60 years of age and free of significant physical illness such as liver disease or severe cardiovascular disease.
Setting: not reported.

Interventions

1. Clopenthixol: dose 132.5 mgm/day, range 25‐250 mgm/day. N=25.
2. Perphenazine: dose 51.2 mgm/day, range 8‐80 mgm/day. N=25.

Outcomes

Leaving the study early.
Global state: CGI.
Adverse effects: requiring additional medication ‐ benztropine methanesulphate; other medications.

Unable to use ‐
Mental state: BPRS (no SD), PIP (no data by group).

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Fischer 1976

Methods

Allocation: randomised not clear.
Blindness: double.
Duration: 6 weeks.
Design: multicentre.
Country: Switzerland.

Participants

Diagnosis: acute schizophrenia.
History: moderate to severe hospitalised acute schizophrenics.
N=723.
Age: not reported.
Sex: not reported.
Inclusion criteria: moderate to severe acute schizophrenics.
Setting: hospital.

Interventions

1. Clopenthixol: dose 100 mg/day. N=36.
2. Clozapine: dose 300 mg/day. N=361.
3. Chlorpromazine: dose 350 mg/day. N=212.
4. Haloperidol: dose 30 mg/day. N=78.
5. Trifluoperazine: dose 30 mg/day. N=36.

Outcomes

Adverse effects: Drowsiness, stimulation, confusion, gastrointestinal side effects, anticholinergic side effects, Dizziness, orthostatic reaction, headache, hypersalivation, hypokinesia, hyperkinesia, dyskinesia, rigor, tremor, akathisia.

Unable to use ‐
Global effect: number of patients completing the study not provided.
Mental state: BPRS (no clear data).

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

High risk

C ‐ Inadequate
Galderisi 1994

Methods

Allocation: randomisation not clear.
Blindness: single.
Duration: 4 weeks.
Design: multicentre.
Country: Italy.

Participants

Diagnosis: schizophrenia (DSM‐III‐R).
History: inpatients and outpatients with duration of illness 0.5‐17 years.
N=34.
Age: 18‐45 years.
Sex: 17 male, 12 female, 5 not reported.
Inclusion criteria: an age between 18 and 45 year; a diagnosis of schizophrenia according to DSM‐III‐R;no history of mental retardation, alcoholism, drug abuse, neurological or other medical illnesses, head injury; no history of ECT.
Setting: hospital and community.

Interventions

1. Clopenthixol: dose 5.5 mg/day, range 3‐7 mg/day. N=10.
2. Haloperidol: dose 12.5 mg/day, range 5‐20 mg/day. N=24.

Outcomes

Leaving the study early: due to side effects(great number of EEG artifacts).
Adverse effects: use of antiparkinsonian medication.

Unable to use ‐
Non responders to the drug treatment (no data by group).

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

High risk

C ‐ Inadequate
Gravem 1978

Methods

Allocation: randomisation not clear.
Blindness: double.
Duration: 8 weeks.
Design: multicentre.
Country: Norway.

Participants

Diagnosis: chronic schizophrenia.
History: duration of illness < 5 years > 20 years.
N=57.
Age: mean ˜ 50 years, range 24‐79.
Sex: 53 male, 4 female.
Inclusion criteria: chronic patients already in neuroleptic treatment, preferably clopenthixol.
Setting: hospital.

Interventions

1. Cis(Z) ‐ clopenthixol: dose 62.5 mg/day. N=29.
2. Clopenthixol (Sordinol): dose 145.0 mg/day. N=28.

Outcomes

Global state: CGI.
Adverse effects: side effects significantly iterfering with patient's functioning or outweighing the therapeutic effect.
Adverse effects: sedation.

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Gravem 1981

Methods

Allocation: randomisation not clear.
Blindness: double.
Duration: 4 weeks.
Design: single centre.
Country: Norway.

Participants

Diagnosis: chronic schizophrenia.
History: duration of ilness upto 10 years.
N=20.
Age: mean 36 years, range 20‐66.
Sex: 13 male, 7 female.
Exclusion criteria: patients with serious somatic disease, pathological laboratory findings, pregnant patients and patients below 15 years of age.
Setting: hospital.

Interventions

1. Cis(Z) ‐ clopenthixol: dose 48 mg/day, range 10‐150 mg/day. N=10.
2. Clopenthixol: dose 88 mg/day, range 10‐200 mg/day. N=10.

Outcomes

Leaving the study early.
Global state: CGI.
Adverse effects: side effects interfering with patient's functioning;
antiparkinsonian treatment.

Unable to use‐
Mental state: BPRS (no SD).

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Heikkila 1981a

Methods

Allocation: randomised.
Blindness: double.
Duration: 8 weeks.
Design: multicentre.
Country: Finland.

Participants

Diagnosis: chronic schizophrenia.
History: duraton of illness from < 1 year to > 5 years.
N=54.
Age: mean ˜ 45 years.
Sex: 28 male, 26 female.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria: not reported.
Setting: hospital.

Interventions

1. Cis(Z) ‐ clopenthixol: dose 73 mg/day, range 10‐150 mg/day. N=26.
2. Clopenthixol: dose 114 mg/day, range 20‐300 mg/day. N=28.

Outcomes

Global state: CGI.
Adverse effect: side effects interfering with patient's functioning.

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Heikkila 1981b

Methods

Allocation: randomised.
Blindness: double.
Duration: 12 weeks.
Design: multicentre.
Country: Finland.

Participants

Diagnosis: chronic schizophrenia.
History: duration of ilness > 10 years.
N=63.
Age: mean ˜ 43 years.
Sex: 41 male, 22 female.
Inclusion criteria: chronic schizophrenic in‐patients or other psychotic in‐patients who might benefit from either of these drugs or already receiving such treatment.
Exclusion criteria: patients under 15 years of age, with serious concomitant somatic ilness or pathological laboratory findings, and pregnants.
Setting: hospitalised.

Interventions

1. Cis(Z)‐zuclopenthixol: dose 40 mg/day. N=30.
2. Haloperidol: dose 10 mg/day. N=33.

Outcomes

Leaving the study early.
Global state: CGI.
Adverse effects: use of other therapeutic drugs.

Unable to use ‐
Global effect: NOSIE (unable to use data).
Mental state: BPRS (no SD).

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Heikkila 1992

Methods

Allocated: randomised.
Blindness: double.
Duration: 8 weeks.
Design: multicentre.
Country: Finland.

Participants

Diagnosis: acute psychosis (ICD‐9).
History: 34 chronic schizophrenia, 2 paranoid states, 2 reactive paranoid psychosis.
N=49.
Age: mean 37 years, range 18‐65.
Sex: 19 male, 19 female, others not stated.
Inclusion criteria: BPRS 25 or more.
Exclusion criteria: Patients with severe, concurrent somatic diseases, pregnant patients and patients with a history of alcoholism or othe abuse, who had an injection of depot neuroleptic less than 1 week before admission and patients who were known to respond well to a particular neuroleptic.
Setting: hospital.

Interventions

1. Zuclopenthixol: dose 33.5 mg/day, range 10‐75 mg/day. N=26.
2. Haloperidol: dose 10.3 mg/day, range 2‐30 mg/day. N=23.

Additional medication: biperiden, nitrazepam, chloral hydrate.

Outcomes

Leaving the study early.
Global state: CGI.
Mental state: BPRS.
Adverse effects: UKU side‐effect rating scale, use of other therapeutic drugs.

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Huttunen 1995

Methods

Allocation: randomised.
Blindness: double.
Duration: 6 weeks.
Design: multicentre.
Country: Finland.

Participants

Diagnosis: chronic schizophrenia (DSM‐III‐R).
History: community patients with acute exacerbation of chronic schizophrenia.
N=98.
Age: mean ˜ 37 years, range 18‐65.
Sex: 47 male, 51 female.
Inclusion criteria: patients aged 18‐65 years and have acute psychotic symptoms requiring antipsychotic treatment, as well as a diagnosis of chronic or subchronic schizophrenia or schizophreniform disorder according to DSM‐III‐R.
Exclusion criteria: patients with clinically significant organic or neurological disorder, serios psychotic disorder other than schizophrenia or schizophreniform disorder, clinically relevant abnormalities in laboratory tests, patients likely to be noncompliant, as well as pregnant or lactating women and those of reproductive age without adequate contraception.
Setting: community.

Interventions

1. Zuclopenthixol: dose 38 mg/day, range 10‐100 mg/day. N=50.
2. Risperidone: dose 8 mg/day, range 2‐20 mg/day. N=48.

Outcomes

Leaving the study early.
Mental state: PANSS score, BPRS.
Adverse effects: extrapyramidal symptom rating scale, UKU side‐ effect rating scale,use of antiparkinsonian medication.

Unable to use ‐
Vital signs, body weight, laboratory screening (no data by group).

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Kingstone 1970

Methods

Allocation: randomised (each patient was assigned a number belonging to a bottle of medication).
Blindness: double.
Duration: 3 weeks.
Design: single centre.
Country: Canada.

Participants

Diagnosis: acute schizophrenia.
History: duration of illness upto 6 years.
N=41.
Age: mean ˜ 31 years, range 18‐65.
Sex: 16 male, 25 female.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria: not reported.
Setting: hospital.

Interventions

1. Clopenthixol: dose 122 mg/day, range 75‐600 mg/day. N=20.
2. Chlorpromazine: dose 435 mg/day, range 150‐1800 mg/day. N=21.

Outcomes

Leaving the study early.
Global state: CGI.
Mental state: BPRS.

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

A ‐ Adequate
Kordas 1968

Methods

Allocation: randomised.
Blindness: double.
Duration: 4 weeks.
Design: single centre.
Country: Greece.

Participants

Diagnosis: chronic schizophrenia.
History: duration of illness 6 years and over.
N=54.
Age: mean 43 years, range 26‐64.
Sex: 29 male, 25 female.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria: not reported.
setting: hospital.

Interventions

1. Clopenthixol: dose 150 mg/day. N=18.
2. Chlorpromazine: dose 300 mg/day. N=18.
3. Placebo. N=18.

Outcomes

Adverse effects: number of patients experiencing side effects.

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Mahadevan 1991

Methods

Allocation: randomised.
Blindness: single.
Duration: 10 weeks.
Design: multicentre.
Country: UK.

Participants

Diagnosis: acute schizophrenia (RDC).
N=61.
Age: mean ˜ 39 years, range 18‐65.
Sex: 26 male, 35 female.
Inclusion criteria: aged 18‐65 years inclusive, were experiencing an acute schizophrenic episode according to RDC and minimum BPRS score of 15.
Exclusion criteria: concurrent serious physical illness, patients who had previously demonstrated intolerance to neuroleptics, received a depot neuroleptic in the previous 2 weeks, or were suffering from a serious additional psychiatric or neurological disorder, patients who were pregnant or lactating; dependence or addiction to drugs or alcohol.
Setting: hospital.

Interventions

1. Zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride: dose range 25‐150 mg/day. N=30.
2. Sulpiride: dose 200‐1200 mg/day. N=31.

Additional medication: temazepam, procyclidine, amitriptyline.

Outcomes

Global state: CGI.
Mental state: BPRS.
Adverse effects: change in mean weight.

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Remvig 1987

Methods

Allocation: randomised.
Blindness: double.
Duration: 12 weeks.
Design: multicentre.
Country: Denmark.

Participants

Diagnosis: acute psychosis or exacerbation of chronic psychosis.
History: duration of illness upto 35 years.
N=54.
Age: mean ˜ 38 years.
Sex: out of 40 included in the final assessment were 15 male and 25 female.
Inclusion criteria: aged 20‐60 years, hospitalised within the preceding 7 days, diagnosis of acute psychosis (excluding mania and depression) or exacerbation of chronic psychosis, and if the duration of neurleptic teatment was estimated at least three weeks.
Exclusion criteria: patients suffering from a serious somatic disease (including decreased liver and kidney function) or organic brain damage, pregnant patients, patients with a history of abuse, who had previously responded well to a particular neuroleptic drug.
Setting: hospital.

Interventions

1. Zuclopenthixol: dose 37 mg/day, range 10‐120 mg/day. N=27.
2. Perphenazine: dose 30 mg/day, range 8‐72 mg/day. N=27.

Additional medication: benzodiazepine, methotrimeprazine, antiparkinsonian drugs.

Outcomes

Leaving the study early.
Global state: CGI .
Mental state: CPRS score.
Adverse effects: UKU Side‐Effect Rating scale.

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Serafetinides 1972

Methods

Allocation: randomised.
Blindness: double.
Duration: 12 weeks.
Design: single centre.
Country: USA.

Participants

Diagnosis: chronic schizophrenia.
History: duration of illness 2 years or longer.
N=57.
Age: mean ˜ 42 years, range 21‐61 years.
Sex: 25 male, 32 female.
Inclusion criteria: no evidence of organic disease, duration of illness 2 years or longer.
Setting: hospital.

Interventions

1. Clopenthixol: dose 205 mg/day. N=15.
2. Haloperidol:dose 12.3 mg/day. N=14.
3. Chlorpromazine: dose 830 mg/day. N=14.
4. Placebo. N=13.

Additional medication: antiparkinsonian medication, sedative.

Outcomes

Leaving the study early.
Adverse effects.

Unable to use ‐
Mental state: BPRS (no SD).
Global state: CGI (no SD).

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Sterlin 1972

Methods

Allocation: randomised.
Blindness: single blind.
Duration: 12 weeks.
Design: single centre.
Country: Canada.

Participants

Diagnosis: schizophrenia.
History: 5 acute and 5 chronic patients in each group.
N=30.
Age: mean ˜ 37 years, range 18‐58.
Sex: 13 male, 17 female.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria: not reported.
Setting: hopspital.

Interventions

1. Clopenthixol: dose 150 mg/day. N=10.
2. Thiothixene: dose 30 mg/day. N=10.
3. Chlorprothixene: dose 450 mg/day. N=10.

Outcomes

Leaving the study early.
Global state: CGI.

Unable to use ‐
Mental state: BPRS (no SD), VTSRS (no SD).
Adverse effects: no data reported by group.

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

BPRS ‐ Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale
CGA ‐ Clinical Global Assessment
CGI ‐ Clinical Global Impression
CPRS ‐ Comprehensive Psychopathological Rating Scale
NOSIE ‐ Nourses' Observation Scale for Inpatient Evaluation
PANSS ‐ Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale
PIP ‐ Psychotic Inpatient Profile
RDC ‐ Research Diagnostic Criteria
SHBS ‐ Schedule for Handicaps, Behaviour, and Skills
TESS ‐ Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale
VTSRS ‐ Verdun Target Symptom Rating Scale

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Ir a:

Study

Reason for exclusion

Aaes‐Jorgensen 1981a

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: healthy volunteers.

Ahlfors 1980

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with chronic schizophrenia.
Interventions: clopenthixol decanoate versus perphenazine enanthate, not oral form of zuclopenthixol.

Al Haddad 1996

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with acute psychosis.
Interventions: zuclopenthixol acetate versus haloperidol, not oral form of zuclopenthixol.

Arango 2002

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with schizophrenia.
Interventions: oral ziclopenthixol versus depot zuclopenthixol.
outcomes: frequency of violent episodes (no data reported by group).

Baastrup 1993

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with acute psychosis, mania.

Bereen 1987

Allocation: not randomised, case‐series.

Bhattacharya 1987

Allocation: not randomised, case series.

Bobon 1989

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with acute psychosis.
Interventions: zuclopenthixol acetate versus haloperidol, not oral form of zuclopenthixol.

Bourdouxhe 1987

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with acute psychosis.
Interventions: zuclopenthixol acetate versus haloperidol, not oral form of zuclopenthixol.

Brook 1996

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with acute psychosis.
Interventions: zuclopenthixol acetate versus haloperidol, not oral form of zuclopenthixol.

Burke 2002

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with schizophrenia.
Interventions: risperidone versus sulpiride, chlorpromazine, trifluoperazine, haloperidol, flupenthixol, zuclopenthixol.
Outcomes: SAPS and SANS scale, unable to use data.

Chin 1998

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with acute schizophrenia.
Interventions: zuclopenthixol acetate versus haloperidol, not oral form of zuclopenthixol.

Chouinard 1991

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with acute schizophrenia.
Interventions: zuclopenthixol acetate versus liquid haloperidol, not oral form of zuclopenthixol.

Clark 1969

Allocation: not clear, double‐blind.
Participants: people with chronic schizophrenia.
Interventions: sordinol versus chlorpromazine versus placebo (unable to use data)

Den 2000

allocation: not clear, double‐blind.
participants: people with schizophrenia.
interventions: ritanserin versus placebo with other neuroleptics one of which was zuclopenthixol.
Outcomes: PANSS, CGI, ESRS, no usable date.

Dencker 1980

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with schizophrenia.
Interventions: clopenthixol decanoate vesus flupenthixol palmitate, not oral form of zuclopenthixol.

Dom 1978

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with chronic schizophrenia.
Interventions: variable doses versus constant dose of zuclopenthixol decanoate, not oral form of zuclopenthixol.

Fagerlund 2003

Allocation: randomised, blindness not clear.
Participants: people with first‐episode schizophrenia.
Interventions: zuclopenthixol versus risperidone.
Outcomes: PANSS, cognitive function, no usable data.

Fensbo 1990

Allocation: randomised, double‐blind.
Participants: people with acute psychosis, exacerbation of chronic psychosis and mania.
Interventions: zuclopenthixol versus haloperidol.
Outcomes: leaving the study early, CGI, BPRS, no usable data.

Glenthoj 2000

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with first‐episode schizophrenia.
Interventions: risperidone versus zuclopenthixol.
Outcomes: PANSS, PPI, cognitive functions, no data provided.

Gravem 1990

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with schizophrenia, manic‐depressive ilness, psychosis.
Interventions: zuclopenthixol acetate and zuclopenthixol decanoate, not oral form of zuclopenthixol.

Hicklin 1967

Allocation: not randomised.

Hovens 2003

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with acute psychosis.
Interventions: risperidone + lorazepam versus zuclopenthixol + lorazepam; zuclopenthixol and lorazepam administered either in oral/injection form, not stated specifically for individual group.

Huang 2001

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with schizophrenia.
Interventions: zuclopenthixol decanoate versus clorpromazine, not oral form of zuclopenthixol.

Karsten 1981

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with oligophrenia.

Knegtering 2002a

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with psychosis.
Interventions: risperidone versus quetiapine, not oral form of zuclopenthixol.

Koskinen 1991

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with chronic schizophrenia.
Interventions: zuclopenthixol decanoate versus haloperidol decanoate, not oral form of zuclopenthixol.

Kristiansen 2001

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: healthy individuals.

Loza 2001

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with first‐episode paranoid schizophrenia.
Interventions: typical antipsychotics (zuclopenthixol, perphenazine, haloperidol, perazine) versus atypical antipsychotics (risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine).
Outcomes: PANSS, DL, WCST, no usable data.

Lublin 1991

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: Psychotic psychiatric in‐patients with tardive dyskinesia.
Interventions: concomitant use of zuclopenthixol and haloperidol.
Outcomes: CGI, BPRS, UKU side‐effects rating scale, no usable data.

Mackeprang 2001

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with first‐episode schizophrenia.
Interventions: zuclopenthixol versus risperidone.
Outcomes: SPECT, MRI, cognitive functions test, rapid visual information processing test.
E‐mailed author for outcomes. Deceased. Colleage replied that the data had not yet been published.
Unable to use data.

Malt 1995

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with learning disability.

Mann 1985

Allocation: not randomised, case series.

Martyns 1993

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with chronic schizophrenia.
Interventions: clopenthixol decanoate versus flupenthixol decanoate, not oral form of zuclopenthixol.

Mazurek 2003

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with paranoid schizophrenia.
Interventions: typical antipsychotics (zuclopenthixol, perphenazine, haloperidol, perazine, levomepromazine) vs atypical antipsychotics (risperidone, olanzapine, clozapine). Information about number of patients using each drug is not provided.

Meyers 1972

Allocation: not randomised.

Mosolov 2000

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with acute schizophrenia.
Interventions: after 2 day wash‐out period for group 1. clopixol acuphase i.m. for 7 days and then oral clopixol for 14 days. Group 2. halopeidol i.m. for 7 days and then oral form for 14 days(no usable data).

Ropert 1988

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with psychosis,mania,chronic schizophrenia.
Interventions: zuclopenthixol acetate versus chlorpromazine, not oral form of zuclopenthixol.

Saxena 1996

Allocation: not clear, double ‐blind.
Participants: people with schizophrenia.
interventions: zuclopenthixol decanoate versus fluphenazine decanoate, not oral form of zuclopenthixol.

Schooler 1993

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with schizophrenia.
Interventions: antipsychotics (not mentioned) and family management.

Shelton 1969

Allocation: randomisation not clear.
Participants: people with schizophrenia.
Interventions: zuclopenthixol versus trifluoperazine.
Outcome: measurment of achilles reflex, no other data reported by group, unable to use data.

Singh 1992

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: mentally handicapped in‐patients with behavioural disorder with or without a psychiatric diagnosis.

Svestka 1986

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with schizophrenia.
Interventions: clopenthixol decanoate versus oxyprothepine decanoate, not oral form of zuclopenthixol.

Syvalahti 1997

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with schizophrenia.
Interventions: citalopram versus placebo with other neuroleptics i.e. haloperidol, chlorpromazine, levomepromazine, zuclopenthixol, thioridazine and perphenazine.
Outcomes: plasma concentrations of drugs, no usable data.

Taymeeyapradit 2002

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with acute psychosis.
Interventions: zuclopenthixol acetate versus haloperidol, not oral form of zuclopenthixol.

Tegeler 1985

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with schizophrenia.
Interventions: clopenthixol decanoate versus fluphenazine decanoate, not oral form of zuclopenthixol.

Uys 1996

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with acute psychosis.
Interventions: zuclopenthixol acetate versus clothiapine, not oral form of zuclopenthixol.

Venkateswarlu 1990

Allocation: not randomised, case series.

Viala 1988

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with chronic psychosis.
Interventions: zuclopenthixol decanoate versus fluphenazine decanoate, not oral form of zuclopenthixol.

Walker 1983

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with chronic schizophrenia.
Interventions: clopenthixol decanoate versus fluphenazine decanoate, not oral form of zuclopenthixol.

Weiser 1975

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with acute schizophrenia.
Interventions: droperidol versus clopenthixol i. m. versus clozapine i.m., not oral form of zuclopenthixol.

Wistedt 1991

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with chronic schizophrenia.
Interventions: zuclopenthixol decanoate versus haloperidol decanoate, not oral form of zuclopenthixol.

Xiaanao 1999

Allocation: randomised.
Participants: people with schizophrenia.
Interventions: concomitant use of clopenthixol and other psychotropics.

Youssef 1991

Allocation: not clear.
Participants: people with psychosis.
Interventions: haloperidol decanoate versus other neuroleptics (fluphenazine decanoate, flupenthixol decanoate, clopenthixol decanoate, oral thioridazine, oral haloperidol, oral pimozide), not oral form of zuclopenthixol.

Characteristics of studies awaiting assessment [ordered by study ID]

Ir a:

Arango 2006

Methods

Participants

Interventions

Outcomes

Notes

To be assessed.
Bombin 2004

Methods

Participants

Interventions

Outcomes

Notes

To be assessed.
Glenthoj 2005

Methods

Participants

Interventions

Outcomes

Notes

To be assessed.
Glenthoj 2007

Methods

Participants

Interventions

Outcomes

Notes

To be assessed.
Glenthoj 2008

Methods

Participants

Interventions

Outcomes

Notes

To be assessed.
Lamure 2003

Methods

Participants

Interventions

Outcomes

Notes

To be assessed.
NCT00206960

Methods

Participants

Interventions

Outcomes

Notes

To be assessed.
Pagsberg 2004

Methods

Participants

Interventions

Outcomes

Notes

To be assessed.
Rubio 2005

Methods

Participants

Interventions

Outcomes

Notes

To be assessed.
Rubio 2009

Methods

Participants

Interventions

Outcomes

Notes

To be assessed.
Rubioz 2006

Methods

Participants

Interventions

Outcomes

Notes

To be assessed.
刘启珍, 2005

Methods

Participants

Interventions

Outcomes

Notes

To be assessed.

Data and analyses

Open in table viewer
Comparison 1. ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs PLACEBO (only short term)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Adverse effects: 1. Autonomic ‐ specific ‐ orthostatic Show forest plot

1

28

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.29 [0.01, 6.60]
Analysis 1.1
Comparison 1 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs PLACEBO (only short term), Outcome 1 Adverse effects: 1. Autonomic ‐ specific ‐ orthostatic.

Comparison 1 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs PLACEBO (only short term), Outcome 1 Adverse effects: 1. Autonomic ‐ specific ‐ orthostatic.

2 Adverse effects: 2. Extrapyramidal effects Show forest plot

2

64

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.73 [1.12, 29.34]
Analysis 1.2
Comparison 1 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs PLACEBO (only short term), Outcome 2 Adverse effects: 2. Extrapyramidal effects.

Comparison 1 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs PLACEBO (only short term), Outcome 2 Adverse effects: 2. Extrapyramidal effects.

2.1 general ‐ extrapyramidal effects ‐ UKU side effect rating scale

1

28

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

6.07 [0.86, 43.04]

2.2 specific ‐ tremor

1

36

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.0 [0.26, 97.37]

3 Adverse effects: 3. 'Psychic' side effects ‐ related to level of arousal Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 1.3
Comparison 1 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs PLACEBO (only short term), Outcome 3 Adverse effects: 3. 'Psychic' side effects ‐ related to level of arousal.

Comparison 1 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs PLACEBO (only short term), Outcome 3 Adverse effects: 3. 'Psychic' side effects ‐ related to level of arousal.

3.1 specific ‐ excitation

1

28

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.63 [0.12, 59.40]

3.2 specific ‐ sleepiness / sedation

1

28

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.89 [1.01, 8.30]

4 Adverse effects: 5. Weight ‐ change (kg) Show forest plot

1

28

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.43 [0.17, 1.11]
Analysis 1.4
Comparison 1 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs PLACEBO (only short term), Outcome 4 Adverse effects: 5. Weight ‐ change (kg).

Comparison 1 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs PLACEBO (only short term), Outcome 4 Adverse effects: 5. Weight ‐ change (kg).

4.1 loss or gain of weight of 10 pounds (high change=poor)

1

28

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.43 [0.17, 1.11]

5 Leaving the study early Show forest plot

1

28

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.29 [0.01, 6.60]
Analysis 1.5
Comparison 1 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs PLACEBO (only short term), Outcome 5 Leaving the study early.

Comparison 1 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs PLACEBO (only short term), Outcome 5 Leaving the study early.

5.1 due to adverse effects

1

28

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.29 [0.01, 6.60]
Open in table viewer
Comparison 2. ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Global state: 1. Not improved (CGI) Show forest plot

7

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 2.1
Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 1 Global state: 1. Not improved (CGI).

Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 1 Global state: 1. Not improved (CGI).

1.1 not 'mildly ill or normal'

2

114

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.55, 1.66]

1.2 unchanged or worse

7

357

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.53, 0.98]

2 Global state: 2. Average score (CGI, high score = poor) Show forest plot

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.20 [‐1.30, 0.90]
Analysis 2.2
Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 2 Global state: 2. Average score (CGI, high score = poor).

Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 2 Global state: 2. Average score (CGI, high score = poor).

3 Mental state: 1. Average scores (BPRS, high score=poor) Show forest plot

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.66 [‐9.09, 3.77]
Analysis 2.3
Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 3 Mental state: 1. Average scores (BPRS, high score=poor).

Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 3 Mental state: 1. Average scores (BPRS, high score=poor).

4 Mental state: 2. Average scores (data skewed, high score=poor) Show forest plot

Other data

No numeric data
Analysis 2.4

Study

Intervention

Mean

SD

N

BPRS

Balasubramanian 1991

Zuclopenthixol

13.1

11.7

50

Balasubramanian 1991

Chlorpromazine

12.9

9.3

44

Heikkila 1992

Zuclopenthixol

11.6

10.05

20

Heikkila 1992

Haloperidol

10.3

9.5

18

CPRS

Remvig 1987

Zuclopenthixol

6.3

5.5

22

Remvig 1987

Perphenazine

5.9

6.5

18

Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 4 Mental state: 2. Average scores (data skewed, high score=poor).

4.1 BPRS

Other data

No numeric data

4.2 CPRS

Other data

No numeric data

5 Adverse effects: 1. General non‐specific Show forest plot

5

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 2.5
Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 5 Adverse effects: 1. General non‐specific.

Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 5 Adverse effects: 1. General non‐specific.

5.1 rated on TESS ‐ unspecified

1

30

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.5 [0.99, 2.27]

5.2 needing treatment with drugs not used for psychiatric disorders

1

63

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.47, 2.10]

5.3 needing treatment with hypnotics/sedative drugs

3

162

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.09 [0.76, 1.56]

5.4 needing treatment with additional neuroleptic drugs

1

54

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.63 [0.35, 1.12]

5.5 adverse effects interfering with patient's functioning

1

63

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.64, 1.29]

6 Adverse effects: 2. Autonomic side effects Show forest plot

2

92

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.35, 2.24]
Analysis 2.6
Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 6 Adverse effects: 2. Autonomic side effects.

Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 6 Adverse effects: 2. Autonomic side effects.

6.1 general ‐ autonomic side effects(UKU side effect rating scale)

1

49

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.36 [0.71, 7.85]

6.2 specific ‐ orthostatic side effects

1

43

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.11 [0.01, 1.73]

7 Adverse effects: 3. Extrapyramidal effects Show forest plot

8

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 2.7
Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 7 Adverse effects: 3. Extrapyramidal effects.

Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 7 Adverse effects: 3. Extrapyramidal effects.

7.1 general ‐ needing antiparkinsonian medication

6

280

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.07 [0.86, 1.33]

7.2 general ‐ extrapyramidal effects ‐ UKU side effect rating scale

2

92

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.78 [0.56, 1.09]

7.3 specific ‐ akathisia

1

49

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.06 [0.60, 7.07]

7.4 specific ‐ hypokinesia / akinesia

1

49

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.76 [0.30, 1.93]

7.5 specific ‐ dystonia

1

49

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.30 [0.01, 6.94]

7.6 specific ‐ tremor

2

85

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.29, 1.73]

8 Adverse effects: 4. 'Psychic' side effects ‐ related to level of arousal Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 2.8
Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 8 Adverse effects: 4. 'Psychic' side effects ‐ related to level of arousal.

Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 8 Adverse effects: 4. 'Psychic' side effects ‐ related to level of arousal.

8.1 general ‐ 'psychic' side effects(UKU side effect rating scale)

1

49

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.77 [0.79, 3.95]

8.2 specific ‐ asthenia

1

49

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.77 [0.50, 6.28]

8.3 specific ‐ excitation

1

43

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.62 [0.07, 5.47]

8.4 specific ‐ sleepiness / sedation

2

92

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.57 [0.93, 2.65]

9 Adverse effects: 5a. Weight ‐ change (kg) Show forest plot

1

43

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.50 [0.20, 1.23]
Analysis 2.9
Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 9 Adverse effects: 5a. Weight ‐ change (kg).

Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 9 Adverse effects: 5a. Weight ‐ change (kg).

9.1 loss or gain of weight of 10 pounds (high change=poor)

1

43

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.50 [0.20, 1.23]

10 Adverse effects: 5b. Weight ‐ total weight increase (kg) Show forest plot

1

83

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.89 [‐7.89, 4.11]
Analysis 2.10
Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 10 Adverse effects: 5b. Weight ‐ total weight increase (kg).

Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 10 Adverse effects: 5b. Weight ‐ total weight increase (kg).

11 Leaving the study early Show forest plot

10

488

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.52, 0.97]
Analysis 2.11
Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 11 Leaving the study early.

Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 11 Leaving the study early.

11.1 any reason

8

424

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.51, 0.95]

11.2 due to adverse effects

2

64

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.28 [0.18, 8.82]
Open in table viewer
Comparison 3. ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Global state: Unchanged or worse(CGI) Show forest plot

1

98

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.30 [0.80, 2.11]
Analysis 3.1
Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 1 Global state: Unchanged or worse(CGI).

Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 1 Global state: Unchanged or worse(CGI).

2 Mental state: 1. No clinical response Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 3.2
Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 2 Mental state: 1. No clinical response.

Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 2 Mental state: 1. No clinical response.

2.1 not achieving clinical response (at least 20% reduction in the total PANSS score)

1

98

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.39 [0.92, 2.10]

2.2 not achieving clinical response for the total PANSS ‐ derived BPRS score

1

98

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.23 [0.82, 1.86]

3 Mental state: 2. Average scores(BPRS, data skewed, high score=poor) Show forest plot

Other data

No numeric data
Analysis 3.3

Study

Intervention

Mean

SD

N

Notes

Mahadevan 1991

Zuclopenthixol

5.7

5.3

16

Mahadevan 1991

Sulpiride

7.0

9.3

24

Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 3 Mental state: 2. Average scores(BPRS, data skewed, high score=poor).

4 Adverse effects: 1. General ‐ reporting adverse effects (UKU‐side effect rating scale) Show forest plot

1

98

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.87, 1.11]
Analysis 3.4
Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 4 Adverse effects: 1. General ‐ reporting adverse effects (UKU‐side effect rating scale).

Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 4 Adverse effects: 1. General ‐ reporting adverse effects (UKU‐side effect rating scale).

5 Adverse effects: 2. Autonomic side effects Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 3.5
Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 5 Adverse effects: 2. Autonomic side effects.

Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 5 Adverse effects: 2. Autonomic side effects.

5.1 specific ‐ gastrointestinal side effects

1

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.15 [0.01, 2.82]

5.2 specific ‐ anticholinergic side effects

1

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.29, 2.63]

5.3 specific ‐ orthostatic reaction

1

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.01, 8.36]

5.4 specific ‐ headache

1

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.07, 16.25]

5.5 specific ‐ hypersalivation

1

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.07, 16.25]

5.6 specific ‐ dizziness

1

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.16, 7.10]

6 Adverse effects: 3. Extrapyramidal effects Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 3.6
Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 6 Adverse effects: 3. Extrapyramidal effects.

Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 6 Adverse effects: 3. Extrapyramidal effects.

6.1 general ‐ extrapyramidal side effects(ESRS)

1

98

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.5 [0.92, 2.44]

6.2 general ‐ needing antiparkinsonian medication

1

98

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.92 [1.12, 3.28]

6.3 specific ‐ hypokinesia

1

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.07, 16.25]

6.4 specific ‐ hyperkinesia

1

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.16 [0.13, 75.20]

6.5 specific ‐ rigor

1

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.11 [0.20, 22.29]

6.6 specific ‐ tremor

1

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.11 [0.20, 22.29]

6.7 specific ‐ akathisia

1

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.07, 16.25]

7 Adverse effects: 4. 'Psychic' side effects ‐ related to level of arousal Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 3.7
Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 7 Adverse effects: 4. 'Psychic' side effects ‐ related to level of arousal.

Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 7 Adverse effects: 4. 'Psychic' side effects ‐ related to level of arousal.

7.1 specific ‐ drowsiness

1

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.29, 3.91]

7.2 specific ‐ stimulation

1

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.66 [0.24, 1.83]

7.3 specific ‐ confusion

1

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.01, 8.36]

8 Adverse effects: 5. Weight ‐ change (kg) Show forest plot

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.60 [‐10.06, 6.86]
Analysis 3.8
Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 8 Adverse effects: 5. Weight ‐ change (kg).

Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 8 Adverse effects: 5. Weight ‐ change (kg).

9 Leaving the study early Show forest plot

2

159

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.48 [0.98, 2.22]
Analysis 3.9
Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 9 Leaving the study early.

Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 9 Leaving the study early.

Open in table viewer
Comparison 4. CIS‐(Z) ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs CIS(Z)+TRANS(E) FORM OF ZUCLOPENTHIXOL (only short term)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Global state: Unchanged or worse (CGI) Show forest plot

3

131

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.08 [0.76, 1.52]
Analysis 4.1
Comparison 4 CIS‐(Z) ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs CIS(Z)+TRANS(E) FORM OF ZUCLOPENTHIXOL (only short term), Outcome 1 Global state: Unchanged or worse (CGI).

Comparison 4 CIS‐(Z) ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs CIS(Z)+TRANS(E) FORM OF ZUCLOPENTHIXOL (only short term), Outcome 1 Global state: Unchanged or worse (CGI).

2 Adverse effects: 1. General non‐specific ‐ interfering with functioning/outweighing therapeutic effect Show forest plot

3

131

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.46, 1.21]
Analysis 4.2
Comparison 4 CIS‐(Z) ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs CIS(Z)+TRANS(E) FORM OF ZUCLOPENTHIXOL (only short term), Outcome 2 Adverse effects: 1. General non‐specific ‐ interfering with functioning/outweighing therapeutic effect.

Comparison 4 CIS‐(Z) ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs CIS(Z)+TRANS(E) FORM OF ZUCLOPENTHIXOL (only short term), Outcome 2 Adverse effects: 1. General non‐specific ‐ interfering with functioning/outweighing therapeutic effect.

3 Adverse effects: 1. Extrapyramidal effects ‐ treatment with antiparkinsonian drug Show forest plot

1

20

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.4 [0.67, 2.94]
Analysis 4.3
Comparison 4 CIS‐(Z) ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs CIS(Z)+TRANS(E) FORM OF ZUCLOPENTHIXOL (only short term), Outcome 3 Adverse effects: 1. Extrapyramidal effects ‐ treatment with antiparkinsonian drug.

Comparison 4 CIS‐(Z) ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs CIS(Z)+TRANS(E) FORM OF ZUCLOPENTHIXOL (only short term), Outcome 3 Adverse effects: 1. Extrapyramidal effects ‐ treatment with antiparkinsonian drug.

4 Adverse effects: 3. 'Psychic' ‐ sedation Show forest plot

1

57

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.19 [0.02, 1.55]
Analysis 4.4
Comparison 4 CIS‐(Z) ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs CIS(Z)+TRANS(E) FORM OF ZUCLOPENTHIXOL (only short term), Outcome 4 Adverse effects: 3. 'Psychic' ‐ sedation.

Comparison 4 CIS‐(Z) ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs CIS(Z)+TRANS(E) FORM OF ZUCLOPENTHIXOL (only short term), Outcome 4 Adverse effects: 3. 'Psychic' ‐ sedation.

5 Leaving the study early ‐ by 1 week Show forest plot

2

29

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.0 [0.27, 92.62]
Analysis 4.5
Comparison 4 CIS‐(Z) ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs CIS(Z)+TRANS(E) FORM OF ZUCLOPENTHIXOL (only short term), Outcome 5 Leaving the study early ‐ by 1 week.

Comparison 4 CIS‐(Z) ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs CIS(Z)+TRANS(E) FORM OF ZUCLOPENTHIXOL (only short term), Outcome 5 Leaving the study early ‐ by 1 week.

Comparison 1 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs PLACEBO (only short term), Outcome 1 Adverse effects: 1. Autonomic ‐ specific ‐ orthostatic.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs PLACEBO (only short term), Outcome 1 Adverse effects: 1. Autonomic ‐ specific ‐ orthostatic.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs PLACEBO (only short term), Outcome 2 Adverse effects: 2. Extrapyramidal effects.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs PLACEBO (only short term), Outcome 2 Adverse effects: 2. Extrapyramidal effects.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs PLACEBO (only short term), Outcome 3 Adverse effects: 3. 'Psychic' side effects ‐ related to level of arousal.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs PLACEBO (only short term), Outcome 3 Adverse effects: 3. 'Psychic' side effects ‐ related to level of arousal.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs PLACEBO (only short term), Outcome 4 Adverse effects: 5. Weight ‐ change (kg).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs PLACEBO (only short term), Outcome 4 Adverse effects: 5. Weight ‐ change (kg).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs PLACEBO (only short term), Outcome 5 Leaving the study early.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs PLACEBO (only short term), Outcome 5 Leaving the study early.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 1 Global state: 1. Not improved (CGI).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 1 Global state: 1. Not improved (CGI).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 2 Global state: 2. Average score (CGI, high score = poor).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 2 Global state: 2. Average score (CGI, high score = poor).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 3 Mental state: 1. Average scores (BPRS, high score=poor).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 3 Mental state: 1. Average scores (BPRS, high score=poor).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Study

Intervention

Mean

SD

N

BPRS

Balasubramanian 1991

Zuclopenthixol

13.1

11.7

50

Balasubramanian 1991

Chlorpromazine

12.9

9.3

44

Heikkila 1992

Zuclopenthixol

11.6

10.05

20

Heikkila 1992

Haloperidol

10.3

9.5

18

CPRS

Remvig 1987

Zuclopenthixol

6.3

5.5

22

Remvig 1987

Perphenazine

5.9

6.5

18

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 4 Mental state: 2. Average scores (data skewed, high score=poor).

Ir a la figura de la revisión

Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 5 Adverse effects: 1. General non‐specific.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 5 Adverse effects: 1. General non‐specific.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 6 Adverse effects: 2. Autonomic side effects.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 6 Adverse effects: 2. Autonomic side effects.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 7 Adverse effects: 3. Extrapyramidal effects.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 7 Adverse effects: 3. Extrapyramidal effects.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 8 Adverse effects: 4. 'Psychic' side effects ‐ related to level of arousal.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.8

Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 8 Adverse effects: 4. 'Psychic' side effects ‐ related to level of arousal.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 9 Adverse effects: 5a. Weight ‐ change (kg).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.9

Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 9 Adverse effects: 5a. Weight ‐ change (kg).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 10 Adverse effects: 5b. Weight ‐ total weight increase (kg).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.10

Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 10 Adverse effects: 5b. Weight ‐ total weight increase (kg).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 11 Leaving the study early.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.11

Comparison 2 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 11 Leaving the study early.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 1 Global state: Unchanged or worse(CGI).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 1 Global state: Unchanged or worse(CGI).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 2 Mental state: 1. No clinical response.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 2 Mental state: 1. No clinical response.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Study

Intervention

Mean

SD

N

Notes

Mahadevan 1991

Zuclopenthixol

5.7

5.3

16

Mahadevan 1991

Sulpiride

7.0

9.3

24

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 3 Mental state: 2. Average scores(BPRS, data skewed, high score=poor).

Ir a la figura de la revisión

Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 4 Adverse effects: 1. General ‐ reporting adverse effects (UKU‐side effect rating scale).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 4 Adverse effects: 1. General ‐ reporting adverse effects (UKU‐side effect rating scale).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 5 Adverse effects: 2. Autonomic side effects.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 5 Adverse effects: 2. Autonomic side effects.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 6 Adverse effects: 3. Extrapyramidal effects.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 6 Adverse effects: 3. Extrapyramidal effects.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 7 Adverse effects: 4. 'Psychic' side effects ‐ related to level of arousal.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.7

Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 7 Adverse effects: 4. 'Psychic' side effects ‐ related to level of arousal.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 8 Adverse effects: 5. Weight ‐ change (kg).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.8

Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 8 Adverse effects: 5. Weight ‐ change (kg).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 9 Leaving the study early.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.9

Comparison 3 ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term), Outcome 9 Leaving the study early.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 4 CIS‐(Z) ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs CIS(Z)+TRANS(E) FORM OF ZUCLOPENTHIXOL (only short term), Outcome 1 Global state: Unchanged or worse (CGI).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 CIS‐(Z) ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs CIS(Z)+TRANS(E) FORM OF ZUCLOPENTHIXOL (only short term), Outcome 1 Global state: Unchanged or worse (CGI).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 4 CIS‐(Z) ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs CIS(Z)+TRANS(E) FORM OF ZUCLOPENTHIXOL (only short term), Outcome 2 Adverse effects: 1. General non‐specific ‐ interfering with functioning/outweighing therapeutic effect.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 CIS‐(Z) ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs CIS(Z)+TRANS(E) FORM OF ZUCLOPENTHIXOL (only short term), Outcome 2 Adverse effects: 1. General non‐specific ‐ interfering with functioning/outweighing therapeutic effect.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 4 CIS‐(Z) ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs CIS(Z)+TRANS(E) FORM OF ZUCLOPENTHIXOL (only short term), Outcome 3 Adverse effects: 1. Extrapyramidal effects ‐ treatment with antiparkinsonian drug.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 CIS‐(Z) ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs CIS(Z)+TRANS(E) FORM OF ZUCLOPENTHIXOL (only short term), Outcome 3 Adverse effects: 1. Extrapyramidal effects ‐ treatment with antiparkinsonian drug.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 4 CIS‐(Z) ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs CIS(Z)+TRANS(E) FORM OF ZUCLOPENTHIXOL (only short term), Outcome 4 Adverse effects: 3. 'Psychic' ‐ sedation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4 CIS‐(Z) ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs CIS(Z)+TRANS(E) FORM OF ZUCLOPENTHIXOL (only short term), Outcome 4 Adverse effects: 3. 'Psychic' ‐ sedation.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 4 CIS‐(Z) ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs CIS(Z)+TRANS(E) FORM OF ZUCLOPENTHIXOL (only short term), Outcome 5 Leaving the study early ‐ by 1 week.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.5

Comparison 4 CIS‐(Z) ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs CIS(Z)+TRANS(E) FORM OF ZUCLOPENTHIXOL (only short term), Outcome 5 Leaving the study early ‐ by 1 week.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva
Comparison 1. ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs PLACEBO (only short term)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Adverse effects: 1. Autonomic ‐ specific ‐ orthostatic Show forest plot

1

28

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.29 [0.01, 6.60]

2 Adverse effects: 2. Extrapyramidal effects Show forest plot

2

64

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.73 [1.12, 29.34]

2.1 general ‐ extrapyramidal effects ‐ UKU side effect rating scale

1

28

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

6.07 [0.86, 43.04]

2.2 specific ‐ tremor

1

36

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.0 [0.26, 97.37]

3 Adverse effects: 3. 'Psychic' side effects ‐ related to level of arousal Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 specific ‐ excitation

1

28

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.63 [0.12, 59.40]

3.2 specific ‐ sleepiness / sedation

1

28

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.89 [1.01, 8.30]

4 Adverse effects: 5. Weight ‐ change (kg) Show forest plot

1

28

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.43 [0.17, 1.11]

4.1 loss or gain of weight of 10 pounds (high change=poor)

1

28

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.43 [0.17, 1.11]

5 Leaving the study early Show forest plot

1

28

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.29 [0.01, 6.60]

5.1 due to adverse effects

1

28

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.29 [0.01, 6.60]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs PLACEBO (only short term)
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 2. ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Global state: 1. Not improved (CGI) Show forest plot

7

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 not 'mildly ill or normal'

2

114

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.55, 1.66]

1.2 unchanged or worse

7

357

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.53, 0.98]

2 Global state: 2. Average score (CGI, high score = poor) Show forest plot

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.20 [‐1.30, 0.90]

3 Mental state: 1. Average scores (BPRS, high score=poor) Show forest plot

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.66 [‐9.09, 3.77]

4 Mental state: 2. Average scores (data skewed, high score=poor) Show forest plot

Other data

No numeric data

4.1 BPRS

Other data

No numeric data

4.2 CPRS

Other data

No numeric data

5 Adverse effects: 1. General non‐specific Show forest plot

5

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 rated on TESS ‐ unspecified

1

30

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.5 [0.99, 2.27]

5.2 needing treatment with drugs not used for psychiatric disorders

1

63

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.47, 2.10]

5.3 needing treatment with hypnotics/sedative drugs

3

162

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.09 [0.76, 1.56]

5.4 needing treatment with additional neuroleptic drugs

1

54

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.63 [0.35, 1.12]

5.5 adverse effects interfering with patient's functioning

1

63

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.64, 1.29]

6 Adverse effects: 2. Autonomic side effects Show forest plot

2

92

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.35, 2.24]

6.1 general ‐ autonomic side effects(UKU side effect rating scale)

1

49

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.36 [0.71, 7.85]

6.2 specific ‐ orthostatic side effects

1

43

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.11 [0.01, 1.73]

7 Adverse effects: 3. Extrapyramidal effects Show forest plot

8

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.1 general ‐ needing antiparkinsonian medication

6

280

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.07 [0.86, 1.33]

7.2 general ‐ extrapyramidal effects ‐ UKU side effect rating scale

2

92

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.78 [0.56, 1.09]

7.3 specific ‐ akathisia

1

49

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.06 [0.60, 7.07]

7.4 specific ‐ hypokinesia / akinesia

1

49

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.76 [0.30, 1.93]

7.5 specific ‐ dystonia

1

49

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.30 [0.01, 6.94]

7.6 specific ‐ tremor

2

85

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.29, 1.73]

8 Adverse effects: 4. 'Psychic' side effects ‐ related to level of arousal Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8.1 general ‐ 'psychic' side effects(UKU side effect rating scale)

1

49

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.77 [0.79, 3.95]

8.2 specific ‐ asthenia

1

49

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.77 [0.50, 6.28]

8.3 specific ‐ excitation

1

43

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.62 [0.07, 5.47]

8.4 specific ‐ sleepiness / sedation

2

92

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.57 [0.93, 2.65]

9 Adverse effects: 5a. Weight ‐ change (kg) Show forest plot

1

43

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.50 [0.20, 1.23]

9.1 loss or gain of weight of 10 pounds (high change=poor)

1

43

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.50 [0.20, 1.23]

10 Adverse effects: 5b. Weight ‐ total weight increase (kg) Show forest plot

1

83

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.89 [‐7.89, 4.11]

11 Leaving the study early Show forest plot

10

488

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.52, 0.97]

11.1 any reason

8

424

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.51, 0.95]

11.2 due to adverse effects

2

64

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.28 [0.18, 8.82]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs OTHER TYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term)
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 3. ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Global state: Unchanged or worse(CGI) Show forest plot

1

98

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.30 [0.80, 2.11]

2 Mental state: 1. No clinical response Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 not achieving clinical response (at least 20% reduction in the total PANSS score)

1

98

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.39 [0.92, 2.10]

2.2 not achieving clinical response for the total PANSS ‐ derived BPRS score

1

98

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.23 [0.82, 1.86]

3 Mental state: 2. Average scores(BPRS, data skewed, high score=poor) Show forest plot

Other data

No numeric data

4 Adverse effects: 1. General ‐ reporting adverse effects (UKU‐side effect rating scale) Show forest plot

1

98

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.87, 1.11]

5 Adverse effects: 2. Autonomic side effects Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 specific ‐ gastrointestinal side effects

1

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.15 [0.01, 2.82]

5.2 specific ‐ anticholinergic side effects

1

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.29, 2.63]

5.3 specific ‐ orthostatic reaction

1

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.01, 8.36]

5.4 specific ‐ headache

1

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.07, 16.25]

5.5 specific ‐ hypersalivation

1

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.07, 16.25]

5.6 specific ‐ dizziness

1

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.16, 7.10]

6 Adverse effects: 3. Extrapyramidal effects Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.1 general ‐ extrapyramidal side effects(ESRS)

1

98

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.5 [0.92, 2.44]

6.2 general ‐ needing antiparkinsonian medication

1

98

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.92 [1.12, 3.28]

6.3 specific ‐ hypokinesia

1

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.07, 16.25]

6.4 specific ‐ hyperkinesia

1

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.16 [0.13, 75.20]

6.5 specific ‐ rigor

1

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.11 [0.20, 22.29]

6.6 specific ‐ tremor

1

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.11 [0.20, 22.29]

6.7 specific ‐ akathisia

1

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.07, 16.25]

7 Adverse effects: 4. 'Psychic' side effects ‐ related to level of arousal Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.1 specific ‐ drowsiness

1

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.29, 3.91]

7.2 specific ‐ stimulation

1

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.66 [0.24, 1.83]

7.3 specific ‐ confusion

1

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.01, 8.36]

8 Adverse effects: 5. Weight ‐ change (kg) Show forest plot

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.60 [‐10.06, 6.86]

9 Leaving the study early Show forest plot

2

159

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.48 [0.98, 2.22]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS (only short term)
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 4. CIS‐(Z) ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs CIS(Z)+TRANS(E) FORM OF ZUCLOPENTHIXOL (only short term)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Global state: Unchanged or worse (CGI) Show forest plot

3

131

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.08 [0.76, 1.52]

2 Adverse effects: 1. General non‐specific ‐ interfering with functioning/outweighing therapeutic effect Show forest plot

3

131

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.46, 1.21]

3 Adverse effects: 1. Extrapyramidal effects ‐ treatment with antiparkinsonian drug Show forest plot

1

20

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.4 [0.67, 2.94]

4 Adverse effects: 3. 'Psychic' ‐ sedation Show forest plot

1

57

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.19 [0.02, 1.55]

5 Leaving the study early ‐ by 1 week Show forest plot

2

29

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.0 [0.27, 92.62]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 4. CIS‐(Z) ZUCLOPENTHIXOL vs CIS(Z)+TRANS(E) FORM OF ZUCLOPENTHIXOL (only short term)
Ir a la tabla de la revisión