Cited by 154Schizophrenia research and treatmentStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsPsychological Testing and Assessment

The Relative Sensitivity of the Clinical Global Impressions Scale and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale in Antipsychotic Drug Trials

Leucht, Stefan, Engel, Rolf R·2006·Neuropsychopharmacology

Abstract

Although the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) are both frequently used in drug trials for schizophrenia, their relative sensitivity in detecting differences between antipsychotics has not yet been examined. We therefore reanalyzed original patient data from all four pivotal, randomized controlled studies (n = 1205) that compared amisulpride with haloperidol in patients with schizophrenia. The sensitivity of the BPRS vs the CGI-improvement and the CGI-severity scales in detecting between-drug differences was estimated by calculating effect sizes and their 95% confidence intervals for both continuous (standardized mean differences) and dichotomous outcomes (odds ratios). The primary end points were the last observation carried forward results at study end points pooling all studies, but the results of the observed cases at different study weeks and the results of the single studies were also examined. The effect sizes derived from the BPRS and from the CGI were similar. When the single studies were pooled, all outcomes analyzed showed a statistically significant superiority of amisulpride compared to haloperidol as early as 2 weeks after initiation of treatment. The CGI may be as sensitive as the BPRS in detecting efficacy differences between antipsychotic drugs, although specific studies with truly independent ratings would be needed for confirmation. The fact that it takes only 1-2 min to fill in the CGI justifies its use in addition to more specific scales in drug trials for schizophrenia. Further development and evaluation of the CGI is warranted.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/sj.npp.1300873

Cites

31 of 31 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
Leucht, S., & Engel, R. R.
Affiliations
  • TUM Klinikum (DE)
  • Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
Corresponding author
Leucht, Stefan
Venue
Neuropsychopharmacology
Published
2005-08-17
Volume
31
Issue
2
Pages
406-412
ISSN
  • 0893-133X (ISSN-L)
  • 1740-634X
OpenAlex
W2067499064
Cited by
154
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 8
FWCI
3.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuropsychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion)
Funders
AstraZeneca
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 › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
Clinical Global Impression Scale, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, schizophrenia, amisulpride, haloperidol, effect size, standardized mean difference, odds ratio
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Mental Disorders, Double-Blind Method, Humans, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, Sensitivity and Specificity, Severity of Illness Index, Time Factors, Antipsychotic Agents, Confidence Intervals, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome

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