↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Non‐antipsychotic catecholaminergic drugs for antipsychotic‐induced tardive dyskinesia

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
222 Mendeley
Title
Non‐antipsychotic catecholaminergic drugs for antipsychotic‐induced tardive dyskinesia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000458.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hany G El‐Sayeh, John Rathbone, Karla Soares‐Weiser, Hanna Bergman

Abstract

Tardive dyskinesia (TD) is a disabling movement disorder associated with the prolonged use of antipsychotic medication. Several strategies have been examined in the treatment of TD. Currently, however, there is no clear evidence of the effectiveness of these drugs in TD and they have been associated with many side effects. One particular strategy would be to use pharmaceutical agents which are known to influence the catecholaminergic system at various junctures. 1. To determine the effects of any of the following drugs for antipsychotic-induced TD in people with schizophrenia or other chronic mental illnesses.i. Drugs which influence the noradrenergic system.ii. Dopamine receptor agonists.iii. Dopamine receptor antagonists.iv. Dopamine-depletor drugs.v. Drugs that increase the production or release of dopamine.2. To examine whether any improvement occurred with short periods of intervention (less than 6 weeks) and, if this did occur, whether this effect was maintained at longer periods of follow-up.3. To examine if there was a differential effect for the various compounds.4. To examine whether the use of non-antipsychotic catecholaminergic drugs are most effective in those with more recent onset TD (less than five years). We retrieved 712 references from searching the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (July 2015 and April 2017). We also inspected references of all identified studies for further trials and contacted authors of trials for additional information. We selected studies if they were randomised controlled trials focusing on people with schizophrenia or other chronic mental illnesses and antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia. We compared the use of catecholaminergic interventions versus placebo, no intervention, or any other intervention for the treatment of antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia. We independently extracted data from these trials and we estimated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assumed that people who left the studies early had no improvement. There are 10 included trials (N = 261) published between 1973 and 2010; eight are new from the 2015 and 2017 update searches. Forty-eight studies are excluded. Participants were mostly chronically mentally ill inpatients in their 50s, and studies were primarily of short (2 to 6 weeks) duration. The overall risk of bias in these studies was unclear, mainly due to poor reporting of allocation concealment and generation of the sequence. Studies were also not clearly blinded and we are unsure if data are incomplete or selectively reported, or if other biases were operating.One small, three-arm trial found that both alpha-methyldopa (N = 20; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80; low-quality evidence) and reserpine (N = 20; RR 0.52 95% CI 0.29 to 0.96; low-quality evidence) may lead to a clinically important improvement in tardive dyskinesia symptoms compared with placebo after 2 weeks' treatment, but found no evidence of a difference between alpha-methyldopa and reserpine (N = 20; RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.86; very low quality evidence). Another small trial compared tetrabenazine and haloperidol after 18 weeks' treatment and found no evidence of a difference on clinically important improvement in tardive dyskinesia symptoms (N = 13; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.95; very low quality evidence). No study reported on adverse events.For remaining outcomes there was no evidence of a difference between any of the interventions: alpha-methyldopa versus placebo for deterioration of tardive dyskinesia symptoms (1 RCT; N = 20; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.02 to 7.32; very low quality evidence), celiprolol versus placebo for leaving the study early (1 RCT; N = 35; RR 5.28, 95% CI 0.27 to 102.58; very low quality evidence) and quality of life (1 RCT; N = 35; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.12; very low quality evidence), alpha-methyldopa versus reserpine for deterioration of tardive dyskinesia symptoms (1 RCT; N = 20; not estimable, no reported events; very low quality evidence), reserpine or carbidopa/levodopa versus placebo for deterioration of tardive dyskinesia symptoms (2 RCTs; N = 37; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.99; very low quality evidence), oxypertine versus placebo for deterioration of mental state (1 RCT; N = 42; RR 2.20, 95% CI 0.22 to 22.45; very low quality evidence), dopaminergic drugs (amantadine, bromocriptine, tiapride, oxypertine, carbidopa/levodopa) versus placebo for leaving the study early (6 RCTs; N = 163; RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.54; very low quality evidence), and tetrabenazine versus haloperidol for deterioration of tardive dyskinesia symptoms (1 RCT; N = 13; RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.09 to 14.92) and leaving the study early (1 RCT; N = 13; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.00). Although there has been a large amount of research in this area, many studies were excluded due to inherent problems in the nature of their cross-over designs. Usually data are not reported before the cross-over and the nature of TD and its likely response to treatments make it imprudent to use this data. The review provides little usable information for service users or providers and more well-designed and well-reported studies are indicated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 222 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 222 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 17%
Student > Bachelor 25 11%
Researcher 19 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 6%
Other 11 5%
Other 39 18%
Unknown 76 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 9%
Psychology 16 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 3%
Neuroscience 6 3%
Other 34 15%
Unknown 86 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 February 2018.
All research outputs
#17,350,971
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,863
of 12,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#285,778
of 451,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#151
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 451,760 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 162 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.