Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 326

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effectiveness and Cost of Olanzapine and Haloperidol in the Treatment of Schizophrenia<SUBTITLE>A Randomized Controlled Trial</SUBTITLE>

Rosenheck, Robert·2003·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Although olanzapine has been widely adopted as a treatment of choice for schizophrenia, its long-term effectiveness and costs have not been evaluated in a controlled trial in comparison with a standard antipsychotic drug. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and cost impact of olanzapine compared with haloperidol in the treatment of schizophrenia. DESIGN AND SETTING: Double-blind, randomized controlled trial with randomization conducted between June 1998 and June 2000 at 17 US Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred nine patients with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, serious symptoms, and serious dysfunction for the previous 2 years. Fifty-nine percent fully completed and 36% partially completed follow-up assessments. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive flexibly dosed olanzapine, 5 to 20 mg/d, with prophylactic benztropine, 1 to 4 mg/d (n = 159); or haloperidol, 5 to 20 mg/d (n = 150), for 12 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Standardized measures of symptoms, quality of life, neurocognitive status, and adverse effects of medication. Veterans Affairs administrative data and interviews concerning non-VA service use were used to estimate costs from the perspective of the VA health care system and society as a whole (ie, consumption of all resources on behalf of these patients). RESULTS: There were no significant differences between groups in study retention; positive, negative, or total symptoms of schizophrenia; quality of life; or extrapyramidal symptoms. Olanzapine was associated with reduced akathisia in the intention-to-treat analysis (P<.001) and with lower symptoms of tardive dyskinesia in a secondary analysis including only observations during blinded treatment with study drug. Small but significant advantages were also observed on measures of memory and motor function. Olanzapine was also associated with more frequent reports of weight gain and significantly greater VA costs, ranging from 3000 dollars to 9000 dollars annually. Differences in societal costs were somewhat smaller and were not significant. CONCLUSION: Olanzapine does not demonstrate advantages compared with haloperidol (in combination with prophylactic benztropine) in compliance, symptoms, extrapyramidal symptoms, or overall quality of life, and its benefits in reducing akathisia and improving cognition must be balanced with the problems of weight gain and higher cost.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.290.20.2693

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 326

Metadata

Authors
Rosenheck, R.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2003-11-26
Volume
290
Issue
20
Pages
2693
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2168875379
Cited by
326
References
5
FWCI
20.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effectiveness and Cost of Olanzapine and Haloperidol in the Treatment of Schizophrenia<SUBTITLE>A Randomized Controlled Trial</SUBTITLE>. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.290.20.2693
The paper
Rosenheck, R. (2003). Effectiveness and Cost of Olanzapine and Haloperidol in the Treatment of Schizophrenia<SUBTITLE>A Randomized Controlled Trial</SUBTITLE>. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.290.20.2693

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.