Cited by 18Schizophrenia research and treatmentMental Health and PsychiatryTreatment of Major Depression

The impact of second generation antipsychotics on insight in schizophrenia: results from 14 randomized, placebo controlled trials

Mattila, Taina, Koeter, Maarten, Wohlfarth, Tamar, Storosum, Jitschak, van den Brink, Wim, Derks, Eske, Leufkens, Hubertus, Denys, Damiaan·2017·European Neuropsychopharmacology

Abstract

Despite the negative impact of lack of insight on the prognosis, general functioning and treatment adherence, the effect of antipsychotic medication on insight has been investigated only in small samples and uncontrolled studies. In this study we examine whether previously reported effects of antipsychotics on insight from uncontrolled studies can be confirmed in a database including 14 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. The database contained placebo-controlled RCTs of five second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs: olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone and sertindole) and included a total of 4243 patients with schizophrenia. Insight was assessed with item G12 of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) at baseline and at six weeks. Overall, SGA treatment resulted in a significantly larger improvement in insight than placebo (0.43 points versus 0.15 points; Hedge׳s g 0.23; p<0.001). However this difference in improvement in insight was largely explained by improvement in other symptoms. In the initial analysis, one of the compounds was significantly less effective in improving insight than the other SGAs, but this difference no longer persisted when improvement in other symptoms was taken into account. The effect of SGAs on improvement in insight was not moderated by geographic region, illness duration or drop-out. The present study showed that SGA treatment of patients with schizophrenia is associated with improved insight, but that this improvement is associated with SGA induced improvements in other symptoms, though the causal relationship may not be established.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2016.10.004

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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
Mattila, T., Koeter, M., Wohlfarth, T., Storosum, J., van den Brink, W., Derks, E., Leufkens, H., & Denys, D.
Affiliations
  • Medicines Evaluation Board (NL)
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Mattila, Taina
Venue
European Neuropsychopharmacology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-01
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
82-86
ISSN
0924-977X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2550990451
Cited by
18
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2
FWCI
2.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Neuropsychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
Keywords
atypical antipsychotics, insight, schizophrenia, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone, sertindole, symptom improvement, medication adherence
MeSH terms
Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Schizophrenia, Antipsychotic Agents, Linear Models, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Databases, Factual

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