Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 272

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Second-Generation Antipsychotic Drugs and Extrapyramidal Side Effects: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Head-to-Head Comparisons

Open access
Rummel-Kluge, Christine, Komossa, Katja, Schwarz, Sandra, Hunger, Heike, Schmid, Franziska, Kissling, Werner, Davis, John M., Leucht, Stefan·2012·Schizophrenia Bulletin

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: While all second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are promoted for having a low risk of extrapyramidal side effects (EPS), clinical observations suggest differences between the various agents. Nevertheless, this question has never been examined in a systematic review and meta-analysis of head-to-head comparisons. METHODS: We searched the register of the Cochrane schizophrenia group (last search May 2007), supplemented by MEDLINE (last search July 2009) for randomized, blinded studies comparing the following SGAs in the treatment of schizophrenia or related disorders: amisulpride, aripiprazole, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, sertindole, ziprasidone, and zotepine. At least 3 reviewers extracted the data independently. The primary outcome was "use of antiparkinson medication." The results were combined in a meta-analysis. RESULTS: We included 54 studies with 116 arms. Risperidone was associated with more use of antiparkinson medication than clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, and ziprasidone. Ziprasidone showed more use of antiparkinson medication than olanzapine and quetiapine and zotepine more than clozapine. There was no significant difference between amisulpride and its comparators (olanzapine, risperidone, or ziprasidone). Quetiapine showed significantly less use of antiparkinson medication than the 3 other SGAs it was compared with (olanzapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone). Scale-derived data (Barnes Akathisia Scale and Simpson Angus Scale) were limited. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis demonstrates that there are differences between the SGAs in their ability to induce EPS that clinicians consider warrant treatment with antimuscarinic drugs. Even though the differences were relatively small, they might be important for individual patients and should be taken into account in drug choice.

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 · 10.1093/schbul/sbq042

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 272

Metadata

Authors
Rummel-Kluge, C., Komossa, K., Schwarz, S., Hunger, H., Schmid, F., Kissling, W., Davis, J. M., & Leucht, S.
Venue
Schizophrenia Bulletin
Published
2010-05-31
Volume
38
Issue
1
Pages
167-177
ISSN
  • 0586-7614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-1701
OpenAlex
W2101228291
Cited by
272
References
4
FWCI
3.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Second-Generation Antipsychotic Drugs and Extrapyramidal Side Effects: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Head-to-Head Comparisons. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/schbul/sbq042
The paper
Rummel-Kluge, C., Komossa, K., Schwarz, S., Hunger, H., Schmid, F., Kissling, W., Davis, J. M., & Leucht, S. (2012). Second-Generation Antipsychotic Drugs and Extrapyramidal Side Effects: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Head-to-Head Comparisons. Schizophrenia Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbq042

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.