↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Chlorpromazine dose for people with schizophrenia

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

4 news outlets
14 tweeters
1 Wikipedia page


26 Dimensions

Readers on

219 Mendeley
Chlorpromazine dose for people with schizophrenia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007778.pub2
Pubmed ID

Katharine Dudley, Xiaomeng Liu, Saskia De Haan


The World Health Organization (WHO) Model Lists of Essential Medicines lists chlorpromazine as one of its five medicines used in psychotic disorders. To determine chlorpromazine dose response and dose side-effect relationships for schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (December 2008; 2 October 2014; 19 December 2016). All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing low doses of chlorpromazine (≤ 400 mg/day), medium dose (401 mg/day to 800 mg/day) or higher doses (> 800 mg/day) for people with schizophrenia, and which reported clinical outcomes. We included studies meeting review criteria and providing useable data. Review authors extracted data independently. For dichotomous data, we calculated fixed-effect risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and their 95% CIs based on a fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and graded trial quality using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). As a result of searches undertaken in 2014, we found one new study and in 2016 more data for already included studies. Five relevant studies with 1132 participants (585 are relevant to this review) are now included. All are hospital-based trials and, despite over 60 years of chlorpromazine use, have durations of less than six months and all are at least at moderate risk of bias. We found only data on low-dose (≤ 400 mg/day) versus medium-dose chlorpromazine (401 mg/day to 800 mg/day) and low-dose versus high-dose chlorpromazine (> 800 mg/day).When low-dose chlorpromazine (≤ 400 mg/day) was compared to medium-dose chlorpromazine (401 mg/day to 800 mg/day), there was no clear benefit of one dose over the other for both global and mental state outcomes (low-quality and very low-quality evidence). There was also no clear evidence for people in one dosage group being more likely to leave the study early, over the other dosage group (moderate-quality evidence). Similar numbers of participants from each group experienced agitation and restlessness (very low-quality evidence). However, significantly more people in the medium-dose group (401 mg/day to 800 mg/day) experienced extrapyramidal symptoms in the short term (2 RCTS, n = 108, RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.74, moderate-quality evidence). No data for death were available.When low-dose chlorpromazine (≤ 400 mg/day) was compared to high-dose chlorpromazine (> 800 mg/day), data from one study with 416 patients were available. Clear evidence of a benefit of the high dose was found with regards to global state. The low-dose group had significantly fewer people improving (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.25, moderate-quality evidence). There was also a marked difference between the number of people leaving the study from each group for any reason, with significantly more people leaving from the high-dose group (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.89, moderate-quality evidence). More people in the low-dose group had to leave the study due to deterioration in behaviour (RR 2.70, 95% CI 1.34 to 5.44, low-quality evidence). There was clear evidence of a greater risk of people experiencing extrapyramidal symptoms in general in the high-dose group (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.59, moderate-quality evidence). One death was reported in the high-dose group yet no effect was shown between the two dosage groups (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.14, moderate-quality evidence). No data for mental state were available. The dosage of chlorpromazine has changed drastically over the past 50 years with lower doses now being the preferred of choice. However, this change was gradual and arose not due to trial-based evidence, but due to clinical experience and consensus. Chlorpromazine is one of the most widely used antipsychotic drugs yet appropriate use of lower levels has come about after many years of trial and error with much higher doses. In the absence of high-grade evaluative studies, clinicians have had no alternative but to learn from experience. However, such an approach can lack scientific rigor and does not allow for proper dissemination of information that would assist clinicians find the optimum treatment dosage for their patients. In the future, data for recently released medication should be available from high-quality trials and studies to provide optimum treatment to patients in the shortest amount of time.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 219 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 217 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 16%
Student > Bachelor 34 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 11%
Researcher 17 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 6%
Other 33 15%
Unknown 63 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 26%
Psychology 25 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 8%
Social Sciences 10 5%
Neuroscience 6 3%
Other 28 13%
Unknown 77 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. 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 28 May 2022.
All research outputs
of 22,551,053 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 286,881 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 249 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,551,053 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,279 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 286,881 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 249 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.