↓ Skip to main content

Wendan decoction (Traditional Chinese medicine) for schizophrenia

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
Wendan decoction (Traditional Chinese medicine) for schizophrenia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012217.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hongyong Deng, Ji Xu

Abstract

Wendan decoction (WDD) is one of the classical Chinese herb formulas used for psychotic symptoms. It is thought to be safe, accessible and inexpensive. To investigate the effects of WDD for treatment of people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illness compared with placebo, antipsychotic drugs and other interventions for outcomes of clinical importance. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (February 2016), which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, China biomedical databases group (SinoMed, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang) and clinical trials registries. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register. We also inspected references of identified studies and contacted relevant authors for additional information. Randomised controlled trials with useable data comparing WDD with antipsychotics, placebo or other interventions for people with schizophrenia. We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated mean differences (MD) between groups and their 95% CIs. We employed a random-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE. We included 15 randomised trials (1437 participants) of WDD for schizophrenia. There was a high risk of performance bias within the trials but overall, risk for selection, attrition and reporting bias was low or unclear.Data showed WDD improved the short-term global state of participants compared with placebo or no treatment (1 RCT n = 72, RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.73, low-quality evidence).When WDD was compared with antipsychotic drugs, such as chlorpromazine or risperidone, no difference in short-term global state of participants was observed (2 RCTs n = 140, RR 1.18 95% CI 0.98 to 1.43, moderate-quality evidence) and mental state (total endpoint Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS): 2 RCTs, n = 140, MD 0.84, 95% CI -4.17 to 5.84, low-quality evidence). However, WDD was associated with fewer people experiencing extrapyramidal effects (EPS) compared with other treatments (2 RCTs 0/70 versus 47/70, n = 140, RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.15, moderate-quality evidence).WDD is often used as an add-on intervention alongside antipsychotics. When WDD + antipsychotic was compared to antipsychotic alone, the combination group had better global state (short-term results, 6 RCTs, n = 684, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.72, moderate-quality evidence) and mental state (short-term total endpoint PANSS: 5 RCTs, n = 580, MD -11.64, 95% CI -13.33 to - 9.94, low-quality evidence), fewer people with EPS (2 RCTs n = 308, RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.70, moderate-quality evidence) and reduction of the mean use of risperidone (1 RCT n = 107, MD -0.70, 95% CI -0.87 to -0.53, low-quality evidence). But, there was no effect on weight gain (1 RCT n = 108, RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.24, low-quality evidence).When WDD + low-dose antipsychotic was compared with normal-dose antipsychotic alone, the combination again showed benefits for short-term global state (7 RCTs n = 522, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.93, moderate-quality evidence), mental state (total endpoint PANSS: 4 RCTs n = 250, MD -9.53, 95% CI -17.82 to -1.24, low-quality evidence), and fewer participants with EPS (3 RCTS n = 280, RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.51, moderate-quality evidence).Across all comparisons, we found no data on outcomes directly reporting quality of life, hospital service use and economics. Limited evidence suggests that WDD may have some positive short-term antipsychotic global effects compared to placebo or no treatment. However when WDD was compared with other antipsychotics there was no effect on global or mental state, but WDD was associated with fewer adverse effects. When WDD was combined with an antipsychotic, positive effects were found for global and mental state and the combination caused fewer adverse effects. The available evidence is not high quality. Better designed large studies are needed to fully and fairly test the effects of WDD for people with schizophrenia.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 25%
Unspecified 16 23%
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Other 11 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 30%
Unspecified 18 26%
Psychology 12 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 9 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 27 April 2019.
All research outputs
#2,090,425
of 13,190,464 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,871
of 10,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,336
of 264,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#160
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,190,464 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,519 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
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 264,598 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 257 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.