↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Antipsychotic combinations 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 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
88 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
178 Mendeley
Title
Antipsychotic combinations for schizophrenia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009005.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Javier Ortiz-Orendain, Santiago Castiello-de Obeso, Luis Enrique Colunga-Lozano, Yue Hu, Nicola Maayan, Clive E Adams

Abstract

Many people with schizophrenia do not achieve a satisfactory treatment response with their initial antipsychotic drug treatment. Sometimes a second antipsychotic, in combination with the first, is used in these situations. To examine whether:1. treatment with antipsychotic combinations is effective for schizophrenia; and2. treatment with antipsychotic combinations is safe for the same illness. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. There are no language, time, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register. We ran searches in September 2010, August 2012 and January 2016. We checked for additional trials in the reference lists of included trials. We included all randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing antipsychotic combinations with antipsychotic monotherapy for the treatment of schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses. We independently extracted data from the included studies. We analysed dichotomous data using risk ratios (RR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed continuous data using mean difference (MD) with a 95% CIs. For the meta-analysis we used a random-effects model. We used GRADE to complete a 'Summary of findings' table and assessed risk of bias for included studies. Sixty-two studies are included in the review, 31 of these compared clozapine monotherapy with clozapine combination. We considered the risk of bias in the included studies to be moderate to high. The majority of trials had unclear allocation concealment, method of randomisation and blinding, and were not free of selective reporting.There is some limited evidence that combination therapy is superior to monotherapy in improving clinical response (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.85; participants = 2364; studies = 29, very low-quality evidence), although subgroup analyses show that the positive result was due to the studies with clozapine in both the monotherapy and combination groups (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.83; participants = 1127; studies = 17). Few studies reported on rate of relapse, most likely due to the short length of the studies. Overall, a combination of antipsychotics was not superior or inferior to antipsychotic monotherapy in preventing relapse (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.29; participants = 512; studies = 3, very low-quality evidence), but the pooled data showed high heterogeneity (I² = 82%). A combination of antipsychotics was not superior or inferior to antipsychotic monotherapy in reducing the number of participants discontinuing treatment early (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.07; participants = 3103; studies = 43, low-quality evidence). No difference was found between treatment groups in the number of participants hospitalised (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.55; participants = 202; studies = 3, low-quality evidence) . We did not find evidence of a difference between treatment groups in serious adverse events or those requiring discontinuation (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.69; participants = 2398; studies = 30, very low-quality evidence). There is as lack of evidence on clinically important change in quality of life, with only four studies reporting average endpoint or change data for this outcome on three different scales, none of which showed a difference between treatment groups. Currently, most evidence regarding the use of antipsychotic combinations comes from short-term trials, limiting the assessment of long-term efficacy and safety. We found very low-quality evidence that a combination of antipsychotics may improve the clinical response. We also found low-quality evidence that a combination of antipsychotics is may make no difference at preventing participants from leaving the study early, preventing relapse and/or causing more serious adverse events than monotherapy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 88 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 178 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 178 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 19%
Student > Bachelor 24 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 10%
Student > Postgraduate 16 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 9%
Other 39 22%
Unknown 33 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 35%
Psychology 19 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 6%
Neuroscience 7 4%
Other 18 10%
Unknown 44 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 63. 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 06 September 2020.
All research outputs
#411,305
of 17,520,458 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#911
of 11,710 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,942
of 274,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#32
of 256 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,520,458 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,710 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 274,915 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 256 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.