↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Chlorpromazine versus penfluridol for schizophrenia

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
165 Mendeley
Title
Chlorpromazine versus penfluridol for schizophrenia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011831.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Naemeh Nikvarz, Mostafa Vahedian, Navid Khalili

Abstract

The efficacy of chlorpromazine, a benchmark antipsychotic, has not been fully assessed in direct comparison with different individual antipsychotics. Penfluridol is another old antipsychotic with a long half-life so one oral dose may last up to one week. This could confer advantage. To assess the clinical effects of chlorpromazine compared with penfluridol for adults with schizophrenia. On 31 March 2017, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register. We included all randomised clinical trials focusing on chlorpromazine versus penfluridol for adults with schizophrenia or related disorders. Outcomes of interest were death, service utilisation, global state, mental state, adverse effects and leaving the study early. 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 planned to estimate the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE. The review includes three studies with a total of 130 participants. Short-term results for hospital admissions showed no clear difference between chlorpromazine and penfluridol (1 RCT, n = 29, RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.60, low-quality evidence). No clear difference in the incidence of akathisia was found at medium term (2 RCTs, n = 85, RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.06, low-quality evidence), and similar numbers of participants - nearly half - from each treatment group left the study early (3 RCTs, n = 130, RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.77, low-quality evidence). The risk of needing additional antiparkinsonian medication was less in the chlorpromazine group (2 RCTs, n = 74, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.95). No useable data reported clinically important change in global or mental state. No data were reported for relapse. No deaths were reported by the trials. Only three small studies provided data and the quality of reporting and evidence is low. Limited data indicate the efficacy and adverse effects profiles of chlorpromazine and penfluridol are generally similar. Penfluridol, however, may confer advantage by needing to be given only once per week. Firm conclusions are not possible without good-quality trials, and where these treatments are used, such trials are justified.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 165 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 165 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 14%
Student > Bachelor 14 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 8%
Researcher 10 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Other 33 20%
Unknown 63 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 12%
Psychology 15 9%
Unspecified 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 22 13%
Unknown 68 41%
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 08 February 2018.
All research outputs
#7,994,598
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,885
of 12,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,267
of 327,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#167
of 191 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.2. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 327,719 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 191 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.