Cited by 131Schizophrenia research and treatmentStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Assessing the comparative effectiveness of long-acting injectable vs. oral antipsychotic medications in the prevention of relapse provides a case study in comparative effectiveness research in psychiatry.

Open access
Kane, John M., Kishimoto, Taishiro, Correll, Christoph U.·2013·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: As psychopathology and social functioning can worsen with repeated psychotic episodes in schizophrenia, relapse prevention is critical. Because high nonadherence rates limit the efficacy of pharmacotherapy, the use of long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics is considered an important treatment option. To date, many studies comparing LAIs and oral antipsychotics have been conducted; however, the results are mixed, and careful interpretation of the data is required. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Selective review of existing literature regarding LAIs. We especially focused the discussion on the impact of the design of studies with different approaches comparing LAIs and oral antipsychotics in preventing relapse. RESULT: The results were diverse and were influenced by the design used, that is, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed LAIs and oral antipsychotics to have similar effects, whereas mirror-image and some large cohort studies showed LAIs to be superior to oral antipsychotics. CONCLUSION: Divergent results from studies using different methodologies create a dilemma for comparative effectiveness research, and LAI studies may serve as an example of a situation in which a conventional RCT is not the gold standard. Traditional RCTs generally increase adherence compared with clinical practice and, therefore, might not be well suited to detect differences between LAIs and oral medications, because any increase in adherence affects patients on oral medications more than those on LAIs and thus leads to an underestimation of any potential difference in effectiveness. A possible solution would be the implementation of a true effectiveness trial in which post-randomization involvement would be kept to a minimum to better reflect routine practice.

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 · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.01.012

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kane, J. M., Kishimoto, T., & Correll, C. U.
Affiliations
  • Albert Einstein College of Medicine (US)
  • Northwell Health (US)
Corresponding author
Kane, John M.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-08
Volume
66
Issue
8
Pages
S37-S41
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2012479321
Cited by
131
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 2
FWCI
9.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (P30MH074543, P30MH060575, P30MH090590)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
long-acting injectable antipsychotics, oral antipsychotics, relapse prevention, schizophrenia, medication adherence, randomized controlled trials, mirror-image study, cohort studies, comparative effectiveness research
MeSH terms
Assessment of Medication Adherence, Delayed-Action Preparations, Humans, Injections, Intramuscular, Psychiatry, Research Design, Schizophrenia, Antipsychotic Agents, Cohort Studies, Bias, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Drug Monitoring, Patient Selection, Medication Adherence, Secondary Prevention, Comparative Effectiveness Research

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