MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240277302 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001948

Zotepine for schizophrenia

2000· review· en· W4240277302 on OpenAlexaff
Shaunna Morris, Anne‐Marie Bagnall, S.J. Cooper, Prasanna DeSilva, Mark Fenton, GO Gammelin, M Leitner

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsCochrane
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCochrane LibraryAntipsychoticNumber needed to treatPlaceboConfidence intervalMeta-analysisRelative riskSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychiatryInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Typical antipsychotic drugs are widely used as first line treatment for people with schizophrenia. The atypical class of antipsychotic drugs, however, is making important inroads into this approach and zotepine is one such compound. It is a dopamine antagonist and claimed to be to be particularly effective for negative symptoms OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of zotepine compared with placebo, typical and other atypical antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia and related psychoses. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches of Biological Abstracts (1980-1999), CINAHL (1982-1999), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 1999), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (January 1999), EMBASE (1980-1999), Dialog Corporation Datastar service (1999), MEDLINE (1966-1999), and PsycLIT (1974-1999) were undertaken. References of all identified studies were searched for further trials. Knoll Pharmaceuticals and authors of trials were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised clinical trials that compared zotepine to other treatments for people with schizophrenia or other psychoses were included. 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 50%. For homogeneous dichotomous data the relative risk (RR), 95% confidence interval (CI) and, where appropriate, the number needed to treat (NNT) and numbers needed to harm (NNH), 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: All outcomes were short term (4-12 weeks). Limited data suggest that zotepine is an antipsychotic, at least as effective as typical drugs. Mental state measures of 'no clinically important improvement' favour zotepine when compared to other active drugs (n=356, RR 0.8 CI 0.7-0.9, NNT 7 CI 4-22). About one third of people in both zotepine and control groups left the studies before trial completion. Zotepine may result in less movement disorder adverse effects than typical antipsychotic drugs. Trials have not highlighted clear differences between zotepine and other atypical drugs. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Zotepine may be a valuable addition to the increasing ranks of atypical antipsychotic drugs. More data from already existing studies is urgently needed to increase the confidence in the findings of this review. New data from well planned, conducted and reported long term pragmatic randomised trials are necessary. Otherwise clinical use of zotepine will be based on speculation on the meaning of the findings of short explanatory trials for everyday practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0310.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.025

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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.247 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations164
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207