Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,062

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia: systematic overview and meta-regression analysis

Open access
Geddes, J., Freemantle, N., Harrison, P., Bebbington, P.·2000·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To develop an evidence base for recommendations on the use of atypical antipsychotics for patients with schizophrenia. DESIGN: Systematic overview and meta-regression analyses of randomised controlled trials, as a basis for formal development of guidelines. SUBJECTS: 12 649 patients in 52 randomised trials comparing atypical antipsychotics (amisulpride, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and sertindole) with conventional antipsychotics (usually haloperidol or chlorpromazine) or alternative atypical antipsychotics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall symptom scores. Rate of drop out (as a proxy for tolerability) and of side effects, notably extrapyramidal side effects. RESULTS: For both symptom reduction and drop out, there was substantial heterogeneity between the results of trials, including those evaluating the same atypical antipsychotic and comparator drugs. Meta-regression suggested that dose of conventional antipsychotic explained the heterogeneity. When the dose was </=12 mg/day of haloperidol (or equivalent), atypical antipsychotics had no benefits in terms of efficacy or overall tolerability, but they still caused fewer extrapyramidal side effects. CONCLUSIONS: There is no clear evidence that atypical antipsychotics are more effective or are better tolerated than conventional antipsychotics. Conventional antipsychotics should usually be used in the initial treatment of an episode of schizophrenia unless the patient has previously not responded to these drugs or has unacceptable extrapyramidal side effects.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.321.7273.1371

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 1,062

Metadata

Authors
Geddes, J., Freemantle, N., Harrison, P., & Bebbington, P.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2000-12-02
Volume
321
Issue
7273
Pages
1371-1376
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2096635847
Cited by
1,062
References
5
FWCI
45.89
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: Atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia: systematic overview and meta-regression analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.321.7273.1371
The paper
Geddes, J., Freemantle, N., Harrison, P., & Bebbington, P. (2000). Atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia: systematic overview and meta-regression analysis. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7273.1371

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.