MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210283868 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001944

Thioridazine for schizophrenia

2000· review· en· W4210283868 on OpenAlexaff
Ajmiri Sultana, J. Reilly, Mark Fenton

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsCochrane
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThioridazineMedicineNumber needed to treatAdverse effectPsychiatryCochrane LibraryPlaceboSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Relative riskAntipsychoticConfidence intervalInternal medicineChlorpromazineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Thioridazine is a piperidine phenothiazine used for the treatment of people with schizophrenia. It has often been considered the drug of choice in the elderly because of reputed lower levels of extrapyramidal adverse events. It may, however, be more likely to cause cognitive adverse events, such as delirium or worsening of memory, and, on rare occasions, thioridazine has caused pigmentary retinopathy. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of thioridazine for those with schizophrenia, and, in particular, elderly people with schizophrenia. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches of Biological Abstracts (1980-1999), CINAHL (1982-1999), The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 1999), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (January 1999), EMBASE (1980-1999), MEDLINE (1966-1999), PsycLIT (1974-1999) and Sociofile (1974-1999) were undertaken. References of all identified studies were searched for further trials. Pharmaceutical companies and authors of trials were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised clinical trials that compared thioridazine to other treatments for people with schizophrenia or other psychoses. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Citations and, where possible, abstracts were independently inspected by reviewers, papers ordered, re-inspected and quality assessed. Data were independently extracted. Data were excluded if loss to follow up was greater than 40%. For homogeneous dichotomous data the Relative Risk (RR), 95% confidence interval (CI) and, where appropriate, the number needed to treat (NNT) were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, weighted mean differences were calculated (WMD). All data were inspected for heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: 560 people from 11 studies were randomised to thioridazine or placebo. For change in global state, small, short term studies (three months or less) found no difference between groups (RR 0.66 CI 0.35-1.23, n=100). At six months, however, two small studies (n=65) favoured thioridazine (RR 0.34 CI 0.21-0. 56, NNT 2 CI 1-6). Fourteen percent in the thioridazine group left early compared to 32% of people allocated to placebo (RR 0.43 CI 0. 31-0.61, NNT 6 CI 4-10, n=510). Few differences in terms of adverse effects, between thioridazine and placebo, were apparent. Limited data from trials suggest that thioridazine is not strongly anticholinergic (blurred vision RR 2.01 CI 0.56-7.25, n=224). Thioridazine is not sedating (at three months to one year RR 2.48 CI 0.96-6.4, n=122). No data were presented on retinal changes. Two thousand three hundred ninety-seven patients from 26 studies were randomised to thioridazine versus typical antipsychotics. For the outcome 'no better or worse', those allocated to thioridazine were no better off than people given control typical neuroleptics (RR 0. 97 CI 0.78-1.21, n=771). There were no clear differences between thioridazine and other drugs for the outcome 'Mental state - no better or worse' on the BPRS by three months (RR 1.3 CI 0.8-2.11, n=208). Twenty-one studies (n=1737) had 19% attrition in both groups. Few differences were seen in the lists of adverse effects. As expected from the placebo comparison, thioridazine does not cause more anticholinergic-type symptoms than other drugs. About half of people given thioridazine felt drowsy or sedated but this was no different from other drugs (RR 1.06 CI 0.93-1.2, n=909). Parkinsonism was less common in the thioridazine group in the short term (RR 0.29 CI 0.12-0.7, n=340). One small study (n=40) found no clear differences between thioridazine and clozapine. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Although there are shortcomings and gaps in the data, there appears to be enough consistency over different outcomes and periods to confirm that thioridazine is an antipsychotic of similar efficacy to other commonly used neuroleptics for people with schizophrenia. Its adverse events profile is similar to that of other drugs, but it may have a lower level of extrapyramidal problems. (ABSTRACT TRU

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.003

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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations8
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207