Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Haloperidol versus low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia

  1. Magdolna Tardy1,*,
  2. Maximilian Huhn2,
  3. Werner Kissling1,
  4. Rolf R Engel3,
  5. Stefan Leucht4

Editorial Group: Cochrane Schizophrenia Group

Published Online: 9 JUL 2014

Assessed as up-to-date: 19 MAY 2012

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009268.pub2


How to Cite

Tardy M, Huhn M, Kissling W, Engel RR, Leucht S. Haloperidol versus low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 7. Art. No.: CD009268. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009268.pub2.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Technische Universität München Klinikum rechts der Isar, Klinik und Poliklinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, München, Germany

  2. 2

    Universitätsklinikum der Technischen Universität München, Klinik und Poliklinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, München, Bavaria, Germany

  3. 3

    Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Psychiatric Hospital, Muenchen, Germany

  4. 4

    Technische Universität München, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, München, Germany

*Magdolna Tardy, Klinik und Poliklinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Technische Universität München Klinikum rechts der Isar, Möhlstr. 26, München, 81675, Germany. magdolnatardy@yahoo.de. tmaggie78@googlemail.com.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New
  2. Published Online: 9 JUL 2014

SEARCH

[Figure 1]
Figure 1. Study flow diagram.
[Figure 2]
Figure 2. 'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
[Figure 3]
Figure 3. 'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
[Figure 4]
Figure 4. Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Comparison 1: HALOPERIDOL versus LOW-POTENCY ANTIPSYCHOTIC DRUGS, outcome: 1.1 Response to treatment.
[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Comparison 1: HALOPERIDOL versus LOW-POTENCY ANTIPSYCHOTIC DRUGS, Outcome 1 Response to treatment.
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Comparison 1: HALOPERIDOL versus LOW-POTENCY ANTIPSYCHOTIC DRUGS, Outcome 2 Mental state: 1a. General - overall symptoms - average endpoint score/change (BPRS, high = poor).
[Analysis 1.3]
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Comparison 1: HALOPERIDOL versus LOW-POTENCY ANTIPSYCHOTIC DRUGS, Outcome 3 Mental state: 1b. General - overall symptoms - average endpoint score/change (PANSS, high = poor).
[Analysis 1.4]
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 Comparison 1: HALOPERIDOL versus LOW-POTENCY ANTIPSYCHOTIC DRUGS, Outcome 4 Global state: Average endpoint score/change (CGI, high = poor).
[Analysis 1.5]
Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 Comparison 1: HALOPERIDOL versus LOW-POTENCY ANTIPSYCHOTIC DRUGS, Outcome 5 Relapse.
[Analysis 1.6]
Analysis 1.6. Comparison 1 Comparison 1: HALOPERIDOL versus LOW-POTENCY ANTIPSYCHOTIC DRUGS, Outcome 6 Leaving the study early.
[Analysis 1.7]
Analysis 1.7. Comparison 1 Comparison 1: HALOPERIDOL versus LOW-POTENCY ANTIPSYCHOTIC DRUGS, Outcome 7 Adverse effects: 1. General - at least one adverse effect.
[Analysis 1.8]
Analysis 1.8. Comparison 1 Comparison 1: HALOPERIDOL versus LOW-POTENCY ANTIPSYCHOTIC DRUGS, Outcome 8 Adverse effects: 2a. Specific - movement disorders.
[Analysis 1.9]
Analysis 1.9. Comparison 1 Comparison 1: HALOPERIDOL versus LOW-POTENCY ANTIPSYCHOTIC DRUGS, Outcome 9 Adverse effects: 2b. Specific - movement disorders - average endpoint score/change (ESRS, high = poor).
[Analysis 1.10]
Analysis 1.10. Comparison 1 Comparison 1: HALOPERIDOL versus LOW-POTENCY ANTIPSYCHOTIC DRUGS, Outcome 10 Adverse effects: 3. Others.
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Subgroup analysis, Outcome 1 Response to treatment - each low-potency antipsychotic separately.
[Analysis 2.2]
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Subgroup analysis, Outcome 2 Response to treatment - treatment resistance.
[Analysis 3.1]
Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Sensitivity analysis, Outcome 1 Response to treatment - fixed-effect model.
[Analysis 3.2]
Analysis 3.2. Comparison 3 Sensitivity analysis, Outcome 2 Response to treatment - exclusion of studies in which randomisation was assumed from blinding.
[Analysis 3.3]
Analysis 3.3. Comparison 3 Sensitivity analysis, Outcome 3 Response to treatment - exclusion of non double-blind studies.
[Analysis 3.4]
Analysis 3.4. Comparison 3 Sensitivity analysis, Outcome 4 Response to treatment - exclusion of outlier study leading to heterogeneity (Dufresne 1993).