↓ Skip to main content

Chlorpromazine versus metiapine for schizophrenia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
146 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Chlorpromazine versus metiapine for schizophrenia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011655.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Morteza Zare, Azam Bazrafshan

Abstract

Chlorpromazine, a widely available and inexpensive antipsychotic drug, is considered the benchmark treatment for schizophrenia worldwide. Metiapine, a dibenzothiazepine derivative, has been reported to have potent antipsychotic characteristics. However, no evidence currently exists on the effectiveness of chlorpromazine in treatment of people with schizophrenia compared to metiapine, a newer antipsychotic. To compare the effect of chlorpromazine versus metiapine for the treatment of people with schizophrenia SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials in November 2015 and 2016. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on chlorpromazine versus metiapine for adults with schizophrenia. We included trials meeting our selection criteria and reporting useable data. We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a random-effects model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE. We included three studies randomising 161 people with schizophrenia. Data were available for only two of our seven prestated main outcomes. Clinically important improvement in global state was measured using the Clinical Global Impression (CGI). There was no clear difference between chlorpromazine and metiapine groups (2 RCTs, n = 120, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.47, very low quality evidence) and numbers of participants with parkinsonism at eight weeks were similar (2 RCTs, n = 70, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.03, very low quality evidence). There were no useable data available for the other key outcomes of clinically important improvement in mental state, readmission due to relapse, satisfaction with treatment, aggressive or violent behaviour, or cost of care. Chlorpromazine has been the mainstay treatment for schizophrenia for decades, yet available evidence comparing this drug to metiapine fails to provide high-quality trial based data. However, the need to determine whether metiapine is more or less effective than chlorpromazine seems to be lacking in clinical relevance and future research on this comparison seems unlikely.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 146 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 14%
Student > Bachelor 21 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 7%
Researcher 9 6%
Other 23 16%
Unknown 51 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 21%
Psychology 19 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 9%
Computer Science 4 3%
Chemistry 3 2%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 58 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 May 2022.
All research outputs
#6,473,419
of 22,961,203 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,283
of 12,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,016
of 309,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#199
of 270 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,961,203 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,334 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.6. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,177 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 270 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.