Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acute psychotic illness, especially when associated with agitated or violent behaviour, requires urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. Clotiapine, a dibenzothiazepine neuroleptic, is being used for this purpose in several countries. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effects of clotiapine when compared to other 'standard' or 'non-standard' treatments of acute psychotic illness in controlling disturbed behaviour and reducing psychotic symptoms. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 2, 2000), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (May 2000), EMBASE (1980-2000), MEDLINE (1966-2000), PASCAL (1973-2000) and PsycLIT (1970-2000) were methodically searched. This was supplemented by hand searching reference lists, contacting industry and relevant authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing clotiapine to any treatment, for people with acute psychotic illnesses such as in schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, mixed affective disorders, manic phase of bipolar disorder, brief psychotic episode or organic psychosis following substance abuse. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were reliably selected, quality assessed and data extracted. Data were excluded where more than 50% of participants in any group were lost to follow up. For binary outcomes a standard estimation of the risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Where possible, the weighted number needed to treat statistic (NNT), and its 95% confidence interval (CI), was also calculated. If heterogeneity was found, a random effects model was used. For continuous outcomes, endpoint data were preferred to change data. Non-skewed data from valid scales were summated using a weighted mean difference (WMD). Again, if heterogeneity was found a random effects model was used. A Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test was used to investigate the possibility of heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials were included. None compared clotiapine with placebo, but control drugs were either antipsychotics (chlorpromazine, perphenazine, trifluoperazine and zuclopenthixol acetate) or benzodiazepines (lorazepam). Versus antipsychotics: results for global clinical outcome were heterogeneous (p=0.09) but did not suggest clotiapine to be superior, or inferior, to chlorpromazine, perphenazine, or trifluoperazine (total randomised = 83). Use of clotiapine did change the proportion of people ready for hospital discharge by the end of the study in one small trial (n=49, RR 1.04 95%CI 0.96 to 2.12). Overall, attrition rates were low. No significant difference was found for those allocated to clotiapine compared with people randomised to other antipsychotics (n=121, RR 2.26 95%CI 0.40 to 13). Weak data suggests that clotiapine may result in less need for antiparkinsonian treatment compared with zuclopenthixol acetate (n=38, RR 0.43 95%CI 0.02 to 0.98). Versus lorazepam: when used to control aggressive/violent outbursts for people already treated with haloperidol, clotiapine did not significantly improve mental state compared to lorazepam (WMD -3.36 95%CI -8.09 to 1.37). Much data could not be pooled due to skew or inadequate presentation of results. Economic outcomes and satisfaction with care were not addressed. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant evidence to support the use of clotiapine rather than other 'standard' or 'non-standard' treatments for the management of acute psychotic illness. The trials included in this review all present important methodological flaws. We do not wish to discourage clinicians from using clotiapine in the psychiatric emergency, we would just like to point out the fact that good quality controlled trials are needed on this subject.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.011 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".