↓ Skip to main content

Gamma-aminobutyric acid agonists for antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
Gamma-aminobutyric acid agonists for antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000203.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samer Alabed, Youssef Latifeh, Husam Aldeen Mohammad, Hanna Bergman

Abstract

Chronic antipsychotic drug treatment may cause tardive dyskinesia (TD), a long-term movement disorder. Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) agonist drugs, which have intense sedative properties and may exacerbate psychotic symptoms, have been used to treat TD. 1. Primary objectiveThe primary objective was to determine whether using non-benzodiazepine GABA agonist drugs for at least six weeks was clinically effective for the treatment of antipsychotic-induced TD in people with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or other chronic mental illnesses.2. Secondary objectivesThe secondary objectives were as follows.To examine whether any improvement occurred with short periods of intervention (less than six weeks) and, if this did occur, whether this effect was maintained at longer periods of follow-up.To examine whether there was a differential effect between the various compounds.To test the hypothesis that GABA agonist drugs are most effective for a younger age group (less than 40 years old). We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (last searched April 2017), inspected references of all identified studies for further trials, and, when necessary, contacted authors of trials for additional information. We included randomised controlled trials of non-benzodiazepine GABA agonist drugs in people with antipsychotic-induced TD and schizophrenia or other chronic mental illness. Two review authors independently selected and critically appraised studies, extracted and analysed data on an intention-to-treat basis. Where possible and appropriate we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous data we calculated mean differences (MD). We assumed that people who left early had no improvement. We contacted investigators to obtain missing information. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE. We included 11 studies that randomised 343 people. Overall, the risk of bias in the included studies was unclear, mainly due to poor reporting; allocation concealment was not described, generation of the sequence was not explicit, participants and outcome assessors were not clearly blinded. For some studies we were unsure if data were complete, and data were often poorly or selectively reported.Data from six trials showed that there may be a clinically important improvement in TD symptoms after GABA agonist treatment compared with placebo at six to eight weeks follow-up (6 RCTs, n = 258, RR 0.83, CI 0.74 to 0.92; low-quality evidence). Data from five studies showed no difference between GABA agonist treatment and placebo for deterioration of TD symptoms (5 RCTs, n = 136, RR 1.90, CI 0.70 to 5.16; very low-quality evidence). Studies reporting adverse events found a significant effect favouring placebo compared with baclofen, sodium valproate or progabide for dizziness/confusion (3 RCTs, n = 62 RR 4.54, CI 1.14 to 18.11; very low-quality evidence) and sedation/drowsiness (4 RCTS, n = 144, RR 2.29, CI 1.08 to 4.86; very low-quality evidence). Studies reporting on akathisia (RR 1.05, CI 0.32 to 3.49, 2 RCTs, 80 participants), ataxia (RR 3.25, CI 0.36 to 29.73, 2 RCTs, 95 participants), nausea/vomiting (RR 2.61, CI 0.79 to 8.67, 2 RCTs, 64 participants), loss of muscle tone (RR 3.00, CI 0.15 to 59.89, 1 RCT, 10 participants), seizures (RR 3.00, CI 0.24 to 37.67, 1 RCT, 2 participants), hypotension (RR 3.04, CI 0.33 to 28.31, 2 RCTs, 119 participants) found no significant difference between GABA drug and placebo (very low-quality evidence). Evidence on mental state also showed no effect between treatment groups (6 RCTS, n = 121, RR 2.65, CI 0.71 to 9.86; very low-quality evidence) as did data for leaving the study early (around 10% in both groups, 6 RCTS, n = 218, RR 1.47, CI 0.69 to 3.15; very low-quality evidence). No study reported on social confidence, social inclusion, social networks, or personalised quality of life, a group of outcomes selected as being of particular importance to patients. We are uncertain about the evidence of the effects of baclofen, progabide, sodium valproate or tetrahydroisoxazolopyridinol (THIP) for people with antipsychotic-induced TD. Evidence is inconclusive and unconvincing. The quality of data available for main outcomes ranges from very low to low. Any possible benefits are likely to be outweighed by the adverse effects associated with their use.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 15 21%
Unknown 20 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 28%
Psychology 7 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 26 36%

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 23 November 2018.
All research outputs
#3,651,195
of 13,906,652 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,483
of 10,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,379
of 276,018 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#141
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,906,652 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,752 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.4. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 276,018 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 188 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.