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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?
Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J. M., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4 · Cited by 17,582
Seeman, P., & Lee, T. (1975) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1145194 · Cited by 869
Cited by
Effectiveness of Antipsychotic Drugs in Patients with Chronic Schizophrenia
Lieberman, J. A., Stroup, T. S., McEvoy, J. P., Swartz, M. S., Rosenheck, R. A., Perkins, D. O., Keefe, R. S. E., Davis, S. M., Davis, C. E., Lebowitz, B. D., et al. (2005) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa051688 · Cited by 5,892
Leucht, S., Cipriani, A., Spineli, L., Mavridis, D., Örey, D., Richter, F., Samara, M., Barbui, C., Engel, R. R., Geddes, J. R., et al. (2013) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)60733-3 · Cited by 2,561
Self-citationSaha, S., Chant, D., & McGrath, J. (2007) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.64.10.1123 · Cited by 2,065
Second-generation versus first-generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia: a meta-analysis
Leucht, S., Corves, C., Arbter, D., Engel, R. R., Li, C., & Davis, J. M. (2009) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(08)61764-x · Cited by 1,930
Self-citationRoth, B. L., Sheffler, D. J., & Kroeze, W. K. (2004) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd1346 · Cited by 1,155
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.