Cited by 66Schizophrenia research and treatmentSalivary Gland Disorders and FunctionsNausea and vomiting management

Treatment strategies for clozapine-induced sialorrhea: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Chen, Shih-Yu, Ravindran, Gopi, Zhang, Qichen, Kisely, Steve, Siskind, Dan·2019·CNS Drugs

Abstract

Background Clozapine is the most effective medication for treatment-refractory schizophrenia. However, it has a high burden of adverse events, including common adverse events such as sialorrhea. Sialorrhea can lead to severe physical complications such as aspiration pneumonia, as well as psychological complications including embarrassment and low self-esteem. Compromised adherence and treatment discontinuation can occur due to intolerability. There have been no meta-analyses examining strategies to mitigate clozapine-induced sialorrhea. Methods We systematically searched Chinese and Western research databases for randomised controlled trials examining agents for clozapine-induced sialorrhea. No limit to language or date were applied to the search. Where sufficient data for individual agents was available, pairwise meta-analyses were conducted. Results were provided as risk ratios and number needed to treat. Sensitivity analysis was conducted by study quality. Adverse events were provided as number needed to harm. Results 19 studies provided data for use in the meta-analysis. Improvement in clozapine-induced sialorrhea was seen in meta-analyses of propantheline (studies = 6, risk ratio [RR] 2.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.52-3.73; number needed to treat [NNT] 3, 95% CI 1.9-2.7), diphenhydramine (studies = 5, RR 3.09, 95% CI 2.36-4.03; NNT 2, 95% CI 1.5-2.0), chlorpheniramine (studies = 2, RR 2.37, 95% CI 1.59-3.55; NNT 3, 95% CI 1.6-3.5), and benzamide derivatives (odds r…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40263-019-00612-8

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, S.-Y., Ravindran, G., Zhang, Q., Kisely, S., & Siskind, D.
Affiliations
The University of Queensland (AU)
Corresponding author
Siskind, Dan
Venue
CNS Drugs
Published
2019-02-13
Volume
33
Issue
3
Pages
225-238
ISSN
  • 1172-7047 (ISSN-L)
  • 1179-1934
OpenAlex
W2913045055
Cited by
66
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4
FWCI
1.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • CNS Drugs (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1111136)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Salivary Gland Disorders and Functions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nausea and vomiting management
Keywords
clozapine, drooling, anticholinergic agents, propantheline, diphenhydramine, chlorpheniramine, benzamide derivatives, trihexyphenidyl, cyproheptadine, doxepin, treatment-resistant schizophrenia, adverse drug reactions, constipation, medication adherence, number needed to treat, number needed to harm
MeSH terms
Antidepressive Agents, Clozapine, Histamine Antagonists, Humans, Medicine, Chinese Traditional, Salivation, Schizophrenia, Sialorrhea, Antipsychotic Agents, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Muscarinic Antagonists

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