Cited by 74Schizophrenia research and treatmentPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesNausea and vomiting management

Systematic Overview of Cochrane Reviews for Anticholinergic Effects of Antipsychotic Drugs

Ozbilen, Mehmet, Adams, Clive E.·2009·Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite much being written on the topic, there are few surveys investigating the prevalence of anticholinergic adverse effects of antipsychotic drugs. One study, however, used trial-derived data to calculate estimates. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence/incidence rates of anticholinergic effects as viewed from within relevant randomized trials. METHODS: Data were extracted from each relevant study included in Cochrane reviews. Data were checked, extracted, and simple frequencies, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: Many trials in relevant reviews reported no data on anticholinergic effects (estimate 40,000 participants). However, data were extracted from 177 studies within 54 reviews (N = 27,328 participants). Most data are short-term (<12 weeks). For blurred vision, the newer generations of drugs have rates of between 10% and 20% (eg, risperidone, n = 1460, 6 randomized controlled trials [RCTs], 11.9% prevalence; CI, 10-14; olanzapine, n = 1584; 4 RCTs, 12.2% prevalence; CI, 11-14). These estimates are similar to those of sulpiride (n = 186; 2 RCTs, 12.4%; CI, 8-18) and chlorpromazine (n = 294; 10 RCTs, 11.2%; CI, 8-15), less than trifluoperazine (n = 167; 8 RCTs, 31.1%; CI, 25-39), but considerably more than perphenazine (n = 410; 8 RCTs, 3.7%; CI, 2-6). Data are presented on a range of anticholinergic effects across different periods. CONCLUSIONS: Anticholinergic symptoms are common adverse effects associated with the use of all antipsychotic drugs, and newer-generation drugs are not clearly distinguishable from many older compounds. Adverse effect data should be more accessible.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/jcp.0b013e31819a91f1

Cites

28 of 28 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
Ozbilen, M., & Adams, C. E.
Affiliations
  • Seacroft Hospital (GB)
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Ozbilen, Mehmet
Venue
Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology
Published
2009-04
Volume
29
Issue
2
Pages
141-146
ISSN
0271-0749 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2009542905
Cited by
74
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • AstraZeneca
  • University of Leeds
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nausea and vomiting management
Keywords
anticholinergic effects, antipsychotic drugs, adverse drug reactions, blurred vision, risperidone, olanzapine, chlorpromazine, trifluoperazine, perphenazine, sulpiride
MeSH terms
Humans, Review Literature as Topic, Schizophrenia, Antipsychotic Agents, Vision Disorders, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Cholinergic Antagonists

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