↓ Skip to main content

The efficacy, acceptability, and safety of five atypical antipsychotics in patients with first-episode drug-naïve schizophrenia: a randomized comparative trial

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of General Psychiatry, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The efficacy, acceptability, and safety of five atypical antipsychotics in patients with first-episode drug-naïve schizophrenia: a randomized comparative trial
Published in
Annals of General Psychiatry, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12991-017-0170-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Congjie Wang, Wenjie Shi, Chengbing Huang, Jiannan Zhu, Wenzhong Huang, Gang Chen

Abstract

Differences in effectiveness and tolerability between different atypical antipsychotics may affect schizophrenic patients' treatment adherence or prognosis. However, which kind of antipsychotic was more effective and safe in the treatment of schizophrenia is still being debated. This study attempted to understand whether there are any differences in efficacy, acceptability, and safety between the five atypical antipsychotics in patients with first-episode schizophrenia. Two hundred cases of inpatients with first-episode drug-naïve schizophrenia were randomly assigned to 6-8 weeks of treatment with either of aripiprazole, risperidone, quetiapine, olanzapine, or ziprasidone from October 2012 to November 2014. The efficacy, acceptability, and safety measurement after 6-8 weeks of treatment of the five kinds of antipsychotics were evaluated by the deduction rate of Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) total score, the proportion of treatment discontinuation, and adverse events, respectively. Whether the treatment discontinuation or combination therapy for baseline antipsychotics after titration mainly depended on ineffective or less effective on an initial-assigned antipsychotic during the study period. BPRS total scores in each antipsychotic group were significantly decreased at the end of the study (P < 0.01), and only the deduction rate of BPRS total scores in the risperidone group was markedly higher than those in the groups of aripiprazole (P < 0.01) and olanzapine (P < 0.05) after controlling the impact of the differences of age of onset. There were significant differences between quetiapine (χ2 = 5.46, P = 0.019), olanzapine (χ2 = 5.6, P = 0.018), and ziprasidone regarding the proportion of maintaining on initially allocated therapy. In addition, the difference in treatment discontinuation between male and female patients was also significant (χ2 = 9.897, P = 0.002), and odds ratio of treatment discontinuation in male and female patients was 0.37 (95% CI 0.198-0.693); however, no difference in treatment discontinuation was found between five antipsychotics. Extrapyramidal symptoms in the groups of quetiapine and olanzapine were notably less than the other three kinds of antipsychotics (P < 0.05), but there were no significant differences in other adverse events between the five antipsychotic groups. Risperidone was more effective than aripiprazole and olanzapine in treating first-episode schizophrenia. The present study revealed the superiority of quetiapine and olanzapine over ziprasidone with remarkably less severe extrapyramidal adverse effects, especially with lower drop-out and treatment discontinuation. There were no differences in terms of other adverse events although the risk of treatment discontinuation was higher in female patients. Trial registration 2012-3-88. Registered 20 July 2012.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 14%
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 9 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 19%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 13 30%

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 11 February 2018.
All research outputs
#3,525,643
of 14,115,825 outputs
Outputs from Annals of General Psychiatry
#96
of 347 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,365
of 398,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of General Psychiatry
#10
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,115,825 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 347 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
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 398,459 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 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.