Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 725

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

New generation antipsychotics versus low-potency conventional antipsychotics: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Leucht, Stefan, Wahlbeck, Kristian, Hamann, Johannes, Kissling, Werner·2003·The Lancet

Abstract

BACKGROUND The clearest advantage of new generation, atypical antipsychotics is a reduced risk of extrapyramidal side-effects (EPS), compared with conventional compounds. These findings might have been biased by the use of the high-potency antipsychotic haloperidol as a comparator in most of the trials. We aimed to establish whether the new drugs induce fewer EPS than low-potency conventional antipsychotics. METHODS We did a meta-analysis of all randomised controlled trials in which new generation antipsychotics had been compared with low-potency (equivalent or less potent than chlorpromazine) conventional drugs. We included studies that met quality criteria A or B in the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook, and assessed quality with the Jadad scale. The primary outcome of interest was the number of patients who had at least one EPS. We used risk differences and 95% CIs as measures of effect size. FINDINGS We identified 31 studies with a total of 2320 participants. Of the new generation drugs, only clozapine was associated with significantly fewer EPS (RD=-0.15, 95% CI -0.26 to -0.4, p=0.008) and higher efficacy than low-potency conventional drugs. Reduced frequency of EPS seen with olanzapine was of borderline significance (-0.15, -0.31 to -0.01, p=0.07). Only one inconclusive trial of amisulpride, quetiapine, and risperidone and no investigations of ziprasidone and sertindole were identified, but some evidence indicates that zotepine and remoxipride do not lead to fewer EPS than low-potency antipsychotics. Mean doses less than 600 mg/day of chlorpromazine or its equivalent had no higher risk of EPS than new generation drugs. As a group, new generation drugs were moderately more efficacious than low-potency antipsychotics, largely irrespective of the comparator doses used. INTERPRETATION Optimum doses of low-potency conventional antipsychotics might not induce more EPS than new generation drugs. Potential advantages in efficacy of the new generation drugs should be a factor in clinical treatment decisions to use these rather than conventional drugs.

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 · 10.1016/s0140-6736(03)13306-5

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 725

Metadata

Authors
Leucht, S., Wahlbeck, K., Hamann, J., & Kissling, W.
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-05
Volume
361
Issue
9369
Pages
1581-1589
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2098132738
Cited by
725
References
3
FWCI
6.72
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: New generation antipsychotics versus low-potency conventional antipsychotics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(03)13306-5
The paper
Leucht, S., Wahlbeck, K., Hamann, J., & Kissling, W. (2003). New generation antipsychotics versus low-potency conventional antipsychotics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(03)13306-5

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.