↓ Skip to main content

The benefit of minocycline on negative symptoms in early-phase psychosis in addition to standard care - extent and mechanism (BeneMin): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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 benefit of minocycline on negative symptoms in early-phase psychosis in addition to standard care - extent and mechanism (BeneMin): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Published in
Trials, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-0580-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Danuta M Lisiecka, John Suckling, Thomas RE Barnes, Imran B Chaudhry, Paola Dazzan, Nusrat Husain, Peter B Jones, Eileen M Joyce, Stephen M Lawrie, Rachel Upthegrove, Bill Deakin

Abstract

Negative symptoms of psychosis do not respond to the traditional therapy with first- or second-generation antipsychotics and are among main causes of a decrease in quality of life observed in individuals suffering from the disorder. Minocycline, a broad-spectrum tetracyclic antibiotic displaying neuroprotective properties has been suggested as a new potential therapy for negative symptoms. In the two previous clinical trials comparing minocycline and placebo, both added to the standard care, patients receiving minocycline showed increased reduction in negative symptoms. Three routes to neuroprotection by minocycline have been identified: neuroprotection against grey matter loss, anti-inflammatory action and stabilisation of glutamate receptors. However, it is not yet certain what the extent of the benefit of minocycline in psychosis is and what its mechanism is. We present a protocol for a multi-centre double-blind randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial entitled The Benefit of Minocycline on Negative Symptoms of Psychosis: Extent and Mechanism (BeneMin). After providing informed consent, 226 participants in the early phase of psychosis will be randomised to receive either 100 mg modified-release capsules of minocycline or similar capsules with placebo for 12 months in addition to standard care. The participants will be tested for outcome variables before and after the intervention period. The extent of benefit will be tested via clinical outcome measures, namely the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale score, social and cognitive functioning scores, antipsychotic medication dose equivalent and level of weight gain. The mechanism of action of minocycline will be tested via blood screening for circulating cytokines and magnetic resonance imaging with three-dimensional T1-weighted rapid gradient-echo, proton density T2-weighted dual echo and T2*-weighted gradient echo planar imaging with N-back task and resting state. Eight research centres in UK and 15 National Health Service Trusts and Health Boards will be involved in recruiting participants, performing the study and analysing the data. The BeneMin trial can inform as to whether in minocycline we have found a new and effective therapy against negative symptoms of psychosis. The European Union Clinical Trial Register: EudraCT 2010-022463-35 with the registration finalised in July 2011. The recruitment in the trial started in January 2013 with the first patient recruited in March 2013.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 112 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 17%
Student > Master 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 15 13%
Researcher 14 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 22 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 23%
Psychology 22 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 8%
Neuroscience 9 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 27 24%
Attention Score in Context

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 22 December 2016.
All research outputs
#6,145,091
of 22,799,071 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#2,237
of 5,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,548
of 256,357 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#38
of 120 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,799,071 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,868 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 256,357 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 120 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 68% of its contemporaries.