↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Chlorpromazine versus reserpine for schizophrenia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 Mendeley
Title
Chlorpromazine versus reserpine for schizophrenia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012122.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Selin Nur, Clive E Adams

Abstract

In the 1940s reserpine, refined from a plant extract that had been used for centuries, began to be used as a treatment for people with mental disorders and was one of the very first antipsychotic drugs. Its irreversible pharmacological potency and adverse effects meant that it has been withdrawn in the UK and its role has been superceded by 'newer' compounds. The effects of reserpine are of historical interest although there are some reports of it still being used in highly specialist situations in psychiatry. Chlorpromazine is also an old drug but it is still used for treatment of people with schizophrenia. To investigate the effects of two old medications (reserpine and chlorpromazine) for people with schizophrenia. Reserpine is now rarely used while chlorpromazine remains on the essential list of drugs of the World Health Organization (WHO). We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (24 March 2016). We included randomised clinical trials focusing on chlorpromazine versus reserpine for schizophrenia that presented 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. 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 currently includes nine studies with an average 60 participants per study. All of these studies are now over 60 years old, conducted between 1955 and 1962. When chlorpromazine was compared with reserpine for people with schizophrenia, improvement in global state was better at short term for those receiving chlorpromazine (n = 781, 6 RCTs, RR 'not improved' 0.75 95% CI 0.62 to 0.92, low-quality evidence). Short-term improvement in paranoid distortion was measured using the Multidimensional Scale for Rating Psychiatric Patients (MSRPP). Data showed no clear difference between treatment groups (n = 19, 1 RCT, RR 1.33 95% CI 0.62 to 2.89, very low-quality evidence). There was no difference in functioning: occupational adjustment, medium term (n = 40, 1 RCT, RR 0.83 95% CI 0.47 to 1.47, moderate-quality evidence) and general behaviour (n = 98, 1 RCT, RR 0.79 CI 0.41 to 1.53, moderate-quality evidence). Adverse events were poorly reported. For 'toxic reaction' there was, again, no obvious difference between the two compounds (n = 210, 3 RCTs, RR 1.68 95% CI 0.43 to 6.54, moderate-quality evidence), and this also applied to leaving the study early (n = 229, 4 RCTs, RR 1.16 95% CI 0.94 to 1.42, moderate-quality evidence). Judged by standards of today, the evidence is largely of limited quality. However, some of these 1950s studies are remarkable in their foresight and clarity. Reserpine did have some effect on global state - but chlorpromazine did seem to perform better. Important issues regarding adverse effects were not really addressed by these trials. Chlorpromazine remains on the WHO list of essential drugs. Reserpine is now almost obsolete, although, probably as a result of evidence other than that reported in the pioneering trials used in this review.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 107 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 20%
Student > Bachelor 18 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 12%
Researcher 9 8%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 24 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 21%
Psychology 16 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 13%
Neuroscience 5 5%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 28 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 30 December 2018.
All research outputs
#4,675,758
of 17,391,055 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,074
of 11,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,285
of 269,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#116
of 184 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,391,055 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 11,668 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. 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 269,894 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 184 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.