MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947693698 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000015816

Safety of aripiprazole for tics in children and adolescents

2019· review· en· W2947693698 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chunsong Yang, Qiusha Yi, Lingli Zhang, Hao Cui, Jianping Mao

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsAripiprazoleMedicineSomnolenceCochrane LibraryRelative riskIncidence (geometry)PlaceboAdverse effectMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialPediatricsInternal medicineConfidence intervalNumber needed to harmPsychiatryNumber needed to treatSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Aripiprazole is widely used in the management of tic disorders (TDs), we aimed to assess the safety of aripiprazole for TDs in children and adolescents. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed in the databases of MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and 4 Chinese databases, from inception to February 2019. All types of studies evaluating the safety of aripiprazole for TDs were included. The quality of studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale tool, the National Institute of Clinical Excellence, the CARE (Case Report) guidelines according to types of studies. Risk ratio (RR) and incidence rate with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to summarize the results. RESULTS: A total 50 studies involving 2604 children met the inclusion criteria. The result of meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials showed that there was a significant difference between aripiprazole and haloperidol with respect to rate of somnolence (RR = 0.596, 95% CI: 0.394, 0.901), extrapyramidal symptoms (RR = 0.236, 95% CI: 0.111, 0.505), tremor (RR = 0.255, 95% CI: 0.114, 0.571), constipation (RR = 0.148, 95% CI: 0.040, 0.553), and dry mouth (RR = 0.141, 95% CI: 0.046, 0.425). There was a significant difference between aripiprazole and placebo in the incidence rate of adverse events (AEs) for somnolence (RR = 6.565, 95% CI: 1.270, 33.945). The meta-analysis of incidence of AEs related to aripiprazole for case series studies revealed that the incidence of sedation was 26.9% (95% CI: 16.3%, 44.4%), irritability 25% (95% CI: 9.4%, 66.6%), restlessness 31.3% (95% CI: 13%, 75.1%), nausea and vomiting 28.9% (95% CI: 21.1%, 39.5%), and weight gain 31.3% (95% CI: 10.7%, 91.3%). CONCLUSION: Aripiprazole was generally well tolerated in children and adolescents. Common AEs were somnolence, headache, sedation, nausea, and vomiting. Further high-quality studies are needed to confirm the safety of aripiprazole for children and adolescents with TDs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.007
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207