Open Access

Chlorpromazine for schizophrenia: a Cochrane systematic review of 50 years of randomised controlled trials

  • Clive Elliott Adams1Email author,
  • John Rathbone1,
  • Ben Thornley1,
  • Mike Clarke2,
  • Jo Borrill3,
  • Kristian Wahlbeck4 and
  • A George Awad5
BMC Medicine20053:15

DOI: 10.1186/1741-7015-3-15

Received: 16 May 2005

Accepted: 17 October 2005

Published: 17 October 2005

Abstract

Background

Chlorpromazine (CPZ) remains one of the most common drugs used for people with schizophrenia worldwide, and a benchmark against which other treatments can be evaluated. Quantitative reviews are rare; this one evaluates the effects of chlorpromazine in the treatment of schizophrenia in comparison with placebo.

Methods

We sought all relevant randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing chlorpromazine to placebo by electronic and reference searching, and by contacting trial authors and the pharmaceutical industry. Data were extracted from selected trials and, where possible, synthesised and random effects relative risk (RR), the number needed to treat (NNT) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated.

Results

Fifty RCTs from 1955–2000 were included with 5276 people randomised to CPZ or placebo. They constitute 2008 person-years spent in trials. Meta-analysis of these trials showed that chlorpromazine promotes a global improvement (n = 1121, 13 RCTs, RR 0.76 CI 0.7 to 0.9, NNT 7 CI 5 to 10), although a considerable placebo response is also seen. People allocated to chlorpromazine tended not to leave trials early in both the short (n = 945, 16 RCTs, RR 0.74 CI 0.5 to 1.1) and medium term (n = 1861, 25 RCTs, RR 0.79 CI 0.6 to 1.1). There were, however, many adverse effects. Chlorpromazine is sedating (n = 1242, 18 RCTs, RR 2.3 CI 1.7 to 3.1, NNH 6 CI 5 to 8), increases a person's chances of experiencing acute movement disorders, Parkinsonism and causes low blood pressure with dizziness and dry mouth.

Conclusion

It is understandable why the World Health Organization (WHO) have endorsed and included chlorpromazine in their list of essential drugs for use in schizophrenia. Low- and middle-income countries may have more complete evidence upon which to base their practice compared with richer nations using recent innovations.

Background

Chlorpromazine is in the World Health Organization (WHO) list of essential drugs [1]. It is estimated that 24 million people currently suffer from schizophrenia [2], the majority of whom live in low or middle-income countries. Until recently, it would have been common practice for anyone with schizophrenia to have been treated with chlorpromazine at some point [3, 4]. Despite well-documented adverse effects, and the advent of a new generation of antipsychotic drugs, chlorpromazine remains one of the most commonly used and inexpensive treatments for people with schizophrenia [5]. In Africa, chlorpromazine was widely used [6], although we have failed to identify any more recent surveys. In India chlorpromazine is commonly prescribed, and in South East Asia the older generation of antipsychotics are used to treat the majority of people with schizophrenia [7]. In 2003, in the UK, chlorpromazine was the most frequently prescribed of the first generation 'typical' antipsychotic drugs, where, at that time, the 'typical' group of antipsychotics accounted for 44% of all anti-psychotic prescriptions [8].

As well as its almost universal use in clinical practice, chlorpromazine is a benchmark by which other treatments are evaluated [9]. There are many qualitative reviews of chlorpromazine but few attempts have been made to quantify data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) [10, 9, 11]. An up-to-date quantitative review of the effects of this old, highly prevalent treatment is long overdue. 50 years after its formulation, the evidence should be more complete than when the drug was under patent.

Methods

Inclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria were defined and disseminated for peer review within a Cochrane protocol first published 1998 [12]. Articles were included if they reported RCTs where the participants had schizophrenia or non-affective serious/chronic mental illness, and where the interventions included chlorpromazine (any dose or mode of administration) versus placebo or no treatment.

Identification of relevant trials

We identified relevant randomised trials by searching the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register of trials (June 2002), with a phrase designed to identify the many ways of naming chlorpromazine [see Additional file 1]. Citations in all identified articles were inspected for further trials. Rhône-Poulenc Rorer (the original distributors of chlorpromazine) was contacted to request access to archive material, and Dr RA Pargiter (Hobart, Tasmania) donated a large series of May and Baker chlorpromazine reports from 1955 to 1973.

Data extraction and study appraisal

All electronic records identified were independently inspected by BT, CA and JR. The reliability of selection processes and data extraction was checked using a 10% random sample. Full reports of studies of agreed relevance were obtained, quality rated [13], and data relating to methods, participants, interventions and outcomes, extracted. Any disagreement was discussed and decisions documented. If there were outstanding issues, the authors of the studies were contacted where possible to help resolve problems.

Statistical methods

Dichotomous and continuous data were not used if over half of those randomised did not contribute to the outcome due to early attrition from the study or non-compliance. Dichotomous data were combined using a random effects Relative Risk (RR) [14]. Numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/H) [10] were also calculated, and χ2 tests for heterogeneity were performed. Where <50% of people were lost to follow-up at the end of a trial, 'worst case' intention-to-treat analyses were undertaken by assuming that those who had left a trial early had had a poor outcome. The sensitivity of the final results to this assumption was tested. Continuous data were excluded if derived from scales of unknown validity and if totals or measures of variance were not reported. Summation was not attempted where continuous data were too skewed [15]. All estimates of effect are presented with their 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

Electronic searches identified over 1000 records, most of which were ineligible. Full copies of 351 citations were obtained for detailed scrutiny, including a further 50 papers identified from citations. Of these, 302 papers were excluded and 99 reports of the 50 RCTs included (Table 1). Studies were mainly excluded due to lack of random allocation (68%). However, 43 randomised trials (30%) reported irrelevant outcomes, such as serum levels of chlorpromazine breakdown products, or presented data in such a way as to make the outcomes unintelligible or impossible to use.
Table 1

Included studies.

  

METHODS

PARTICIPANTS

INTERVENTIONS

OUTCOMES

INCLUDED STUDIES (date of publication)

Randomised

Double-blind

Three+ arm study

Duration (weeks)

Only Schizophrenia

History

Total number of participants

Age (years)

Sex

CPZ dose (mg/day)

Number allocated CPZ

Number allocated placebo

Leaving the study early

Global improvement

Mental State

Side-effects

Global clinical state

Behaviour

Relapse

1955

Hall

 

9

C

175

20–59

M+F

750 max

87

88

 

 

 
 

Vaughan

 

U/K

 

C

48

M = 43

F

75–450

24

24

 

     

1956

Shepherd

U/K

6

C

24

27–52

F

300

8

8

     

1958

Abrams

  

4

C

40

20–55

F

200–600

20

20

      
 

Grygier

U/K

 

24

C

30

m = 50

F

150

15

15

 

     
 

Hine

 

20

C

22

30–50

F

750 max

11

11

 

   
 

Simon

 

4

 

U/K

80

m = 31

U/K

200–1200

20

0

      

1959

Baker

5

 

C

25

33–79

F

150–300

7

7

   
 

Flemming

26

C

63

m = 58

F

75–300

21

21

  

 

 
 

Walsh

U/K

8

C

66

27–50

F

75–300

22

22

 

 

   

1960

Englhardt

78

U/K

173

18–40

U/K

50–800

62

56

     

 

Hamilton

8

C

54

m = 38

M

300

18

18

  

   
 

Payne

6

C

21

23–73

M

25–100

7

7

   

   
 

Somerville

6

 

C+A

60

24–58

F

200–800

15

30

 

 

 

1961

Clark

24

C

60

26–52

F

200–800

20

20

 

 

   
 

Lorr

12

 

A

308

<50

M

50–100

63

61

      
 

Kurland

6

 

A

277

18–61

M+F

300

33

72

 

   
 

Schiele

16

C

80

m = 80

M

200–1000

20

20

 

  
 

Smith

14

C

30

m = 42

M+F

150–600

13

15

     

 

1963

Bishop

10

C

30

U/N

M+F

800

10

10

     
 

Fink

U/K

6

 

S

311

m = 31

M+F

1200

51

44

      

1964

NIMH

6

A

463

16–45

M+F

200–1600

112

125

      

1966

Reardon

4

A

34

U/K

M+F

300–600

11

12

     
 

Saretsky

 

12

A

40

<55

M

400

20

20

      

1967

Clark

 

10

C

72

25–55

F

678 m

51

21

      
 

Letemendia

 

39

 

C

28

<65

M

300

14

14

      

1968

Clark a

14

C

72

20–60

F

1000 max

18

36

 

   
 

Clark b

16

C

69

20–60

F

1000 max

23

23

  

   
 

Cohen

60

C

126

18–42

M+F

180

42

42

      
 

Prien

24

C

838

19–55

M+F

2000

208

212

 

 

           

300

208

        

1969

Tetreault

12

C

45

m = 50

F

300–600

15

15

 

 

 

1970

Clark a

12

C

44

22–55

M+F

200–1000

15

14

 

 
 

Clark b

 

24

C

71

21–60

F

150–600

54

18

  

 

 

1971

Clark

4

C

86

21–45

M+F

200–1000

23

21

 

   

1972

Clark

12

C

55

21–60

M+F

1000

19

18

 

  
 

Serafetinedes

12

C

57

21–61

M+F

1000 max

14

13

 

   

1973

Hogarty

 

156

S

374

18–53

M+F

270 m

192

182

     

 

Klein

 

6

 

88

17–61

M+F

300–1200

46

42

      

1974

Reschke

0.1

A

50

19–57

M+F

25 im

10

11

 

   

1975

Ban

12

C+A

30

17–46

M+F

200–800

10

10

     
 

Hamill

  

0.7

A

44

18–55

M+F

306–475

22

22

      

1977

Clark

12

C

27

23–61

M+F

1000

9

9

 

   
 

Spohn

 

6+

U/K

40

18–55

M+F

200 min

20

20

      

1978

Rappaport

  

U/K

A

127

16–40

M

300–900

53

74

     

1981

Peet

12

U/K

53

m = 51

M+F

400 max

16

18

  

  

1982

Nishikawa

156

S

55

m = 33

M+F

75

10

10

      

1986

Zuoze

 

4

C

60

m = 36

U/K

450 m

20

20

    

  

1990

Chouinard

4

A

62

19–62

M+F

300–1200

21

21

 

 

 

1991

Borison

4

A

30

22–58

M

400–1600

9

10

  

 

  

2000

Cooper

8

C

159

18–42

M+F

600

53

53

    

Key: = Yes; U/K = Unknown; C = Chronic; A = Acute; M = Male; F = Female; m = Mean; im = Intramuscular injection.

Study quality

All 50 included studies reported the use of random allocation; only 4 were explicit about the process used. Two used the toss of a coin [16, 17], and 2 used random number tables [18, 19]. Citations to all included and excluded studies are available in the full Cochrane Review [12], otherwise the names and dates cited in this text relate to Table 1. A further 2 trials [20, 21] described some form of allocation concealment (sealed envelopes in both cases). The other 44 studies gave little assurance that bias was minimised during the allocation procedure and this may mean that this review overestimates the effect of chlorpromazine [22]. Twenty-eight (56%) of the trials adequately described their attempts to be double-blind, with two [20] and [23] reporting how successful these attempts were. Two studies [18] and [24] gave no indication that blinding had been attempted. Other trials indicated that an attempt at blinding had been made, but they gave no description of how this had been done. The description of participants who left studies early was poor; 12 of the 50 included studies providing no details of treatment withdrawals. Presentation of data was also poor. Trials frequently presented both dichotomous and continuous data in graphs, or reported inexact statistical measures of probability, for example p > 0.05. This often made it impossible to extract raw data for synthesis. Continuous scale data were frequently collected in the trials, but were often poorly reported; 30/50 trials did not report standard deviations and 9/42 did not present any data from the scales they had used.

Study designs

The studies were mostly either 6 or 12 weeks long, but the range was large (24 h to 3 years). The great majority of participants in nearly all of the trials were diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia. These studies reported on >5276 people, 3318 of whom were allocated to chlorpromazine-placebo comparison. Eleven of the 50 trials described the diagnostic criteria used, or the symptoms required for people to be included. Otherwise entry to most of the included studies was based on a pragmatic diagnosis of schizophrenia. The trials ranged in size from 21 [25] to 838 participants [26]. Most people were hospitalised at the time of the study. The lowest dose of chlorpromazine tested was 25 mg/day [27] and the highest 2000 mg/day [26]. One trial [28] included both a placebo and a no-drug group, which we combined. Another study included both a placebo group and a "routine conventional hospital treatment" group [26]. Data from the latter were not used in this review, as people in this group will probably have been given antipsychotic drugs.

Outcomes

Table 2 presents the main results of this review. These intention-to-treat data are derived by synthesising homogeneous trial findings. The results remain essentially unchanged when we only used data from participants who completed the studies. The data show no clear pattern indicative of publication bias when sorted by study size and effect [29].
Table 2

Results relating to clinical change and study attrition.

 

Months

Number of trials

Chlorpromazine

Placebo

RR (95% CI)

Test for heterogeneity

   

events/total participants

  

Relapse

6–24

3

108/202

159/192

0.65 (0.5–9.0)

Chi2 7.83, df 2, p = 0.02 I2 = 74.5%*

No global improvement

2–6

13

470/654

406/467

0.76 (0.7–0.9)

Chi2 25.4, df 12, p = 0.01 I2 = 52.8%

Leaving the study early

6–24

2

38/254

33/238

1.09 (0.7–1.6)

Chi2 0.47, df 1, p = 0.49 I2 = 0%

* no clear cause of heterogeneity found on close re-inspection of trials

Data on global improvement (a dichotomised impression of change), in the period up to 6 months favours chlorpromazine (n = 1121, 13 RCTs, RR No global improvement 0.76 CI 0.7 to 0.9) but is moderately heterogeneous (I2 = 52.8%). Global severity of illness at study end (a dichotomised impression of clinical state) also favours chlorpromazine (n = 778, 5 RCTs, RR severely ill 0.67 CI 0.5 to 0.8, NNT 4 CI 3 to 10; Figure 1). Very few studies present usable data directly relating to end point mental state. The continuous data that are available (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale [30] are equivocal (n = 49, 2 RCTs, RR -4.82 CI -8.5 to 1.2). Most information on behaviour relates to a dichotomous outcome of 'behaviour deteriorated/disturbed/uncooperative' (n = 1127, 10 RCTs, RR 0.53 CI 0.3 to 0.9) but these data are heterogeneous (χ2 73, df 9, p < 0.00001).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1741-7015-3-15/MediaObjects/12916_2005_Article_57_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Chlorpromazine versus placebo – global outcomes.

Chlorpromazine has many adverse effects (Table 3). It is a sedative (n = 1242, 18 RCTs, RR 2.3 CI 1.7 to 3.1, NNH 6 CI 5 to 8) that may cause weight gain (n = 165, 5 RCTs, RR 4.44 CI 2.1 to 9.3, NNH 3 CI 2 to 5). Extrapyramidal symptoms are common and include acute dystonias (n = 780, 4 RCTs, RR 3.1 CI 1.3 to 7.7, NNH 24 CI 15–57) and Parkinsonism (n = 1265, 12 RCTs, RR 2.6 CI 1.2 to 5.4, NNH 10 CI 8 to 16). Data on chronic movement disorders such as tardive dyskinesia, however, are not available from this review as this requires longer follow-up than was attempted for nearly all the trials. Occurrence of akathisia is similar in the chlorpromazine and placebo groups. For every 7 people given chlorpromazine, one will experience some form of photosensitive reaction (n = 799, 6 RCTs, RR 5.19 CI 3 to 10, NNH 7 CI 6 to 10); hypotension and dizziness are common (n = 1232, 15 RCTs, RR 1.9 CI 1.4 to 27, NNH 12 CI 8 to 22); and dry mouth is considerably increased (n = 756, 5 RCTs, RR 4.00 CI 1.6 to 10, NNH 18 CI 13 to 37). Eye opacities, as identified by slit-lamp examination within one large trial using high dose chlorpromazine 2 gms/day [26], were increased within the drug group (n = 657, RR 3.09 CI 1.9 to 5.1, NNH 7 CI 5 to 10). There were no significant differences between people given placebo and those allocated chlorpromazine in the frequency of complaints of constipation, urinary retention and blurred vision.
Table 3

Adverse effects.

 

No. of trials

Chlorpromazine

Placebo

RR (95% CI) Random

  

events/total participants

 

General symptoms

Sedation

18

224/725

68/517

2.30 (1.7–3.1)

Weight gain > 10 lb; 4.5 Kg

5

31/75

7/90

4.44 (2.1–9.3)

Extrapyramidal symptoms

Acute dystonia

4

28/472

5/306

3.10 (1.3–7.7)

Parkinsonism

12

123/723

40/542

2.60 (1.2–5.4)

Fits

3

19/450

4/245

2.41 (0.4–16.4)

Akathisia

8

53/602

40/400

0.95 (0.5–1.9)

Allergic-type symptoms

Agranulocytosis/leucopenia

7

10/207

2/187

2.02 (0.7–5.6)

Rashes/itching

11

42/658

21/475

1.43 (0.9–2.4)

Jaundice

3

8/116

1/115

4.04 (0.9–17.9)

Photosensitivity

6

81/496

9/303

5.19 (2.7–9.8)

Eye opacity

2

97/431

16/226

3.09 (1.9–5.1)

Anti-cholinergic/nor-adrenergic symptoms

Hypotension + dizziness

15

113/708

38/524

1.90 (1.4–2.7)

Constipation

9

40/590

16/365

1.68 (0.9–2.9)

Urinary retention

3

11/459

5/253

1.49 (0.5–4.3)

Dry mouth

5

32/473

4/283

4.00 (1.6–9.8)

Blurred vision

6

10/529

9/381

1.10 (0.5–2.9)

There were no reports of deaths occurring during any of the studies. Any data relating to violent incidents, hospital discharge or admissions, presence of delusions or hallucinations were either absent or impossible to use. Not one of the studies, even in recent years, reported levels of satisfaction and quality of life, nor could we identify any direct economic evaluation of chlorpromazine.

Discussion

These 50 studies amounted to a total of >2000 person-years of exposure to chlorpromazine or placebo. For people with this serious mental illness, and certainly in situations were resources are limited, chlorpromazine remains a first line treatment. The medium term data on improvement suggest that about 7 people have to be treated for one to have what the trialists would describe as 'global improvement' (n = 1121, 13 RCTs, RR 0.76 CI 0.7 to 0.9, NNT 7 CI 5 to 10). This outcome relates to a simple dichotomised impression of a person's mental state, behaviour and functioning. Given the limited quality of reporting and the fact that we may be only able to pool data from a subset of the included trials, even this finding may be an over estimate of the positive and an underestimate of the negative effects of giving chlorpromazine.

The increased likelihood that people given chlorpromazine continued in their trial may be heartening. It could indicate a genuine decrease in the distressing symptoms of schizophrenia that led to an increased compliance with medication, despite common and unpleasant adverse effects such as sedation and hypotension. Doctors and nurses may, at times of acute disturbance, welcome this sedative effect but people with schizophrenia may not.

Despite limitations, this review provides quantitative evidence to confirm many of the impressions held by clinicians and recipients of care about the effects of chlorpromazine. Chlorpromazine is a sedating drug, prone to cause movement problems. Reliable evidence about its short-term effects is surprisingly weak, but information from studies that are >6 months does suggest that chlorpromazine facilitates a global improvement and may decrease the likelihood of behaving in a disturbed manner, at least within the confines of hospital.

Conclusion

Chlorpromazine represents a low-cost choice for clinicians world-wide and merits its position as a benchmark treatment for psychotic symptoms. Until large, high quality, clinically relevant trials show equally inexpensive treatments to be both more effective and safe, chlorpromazine is likely to continue to be one of the most widely used treatments for the millions of people who suffer with schizophrenia.

Although the NNTs may seem high, and the NNHs low, these estimates are likely to be more realistic than those for new drugs, for which all evidence has not been made available. As time passes, studies not seen in the early years of marketing tend to become apparent. These studies may be systematically different from those initially used to sell the drug. As a result, clinical practice of low and middle-income countries, often having to use older generations of drug, may, nevertheless, have more chance of being based on all evidence than that of high income nations. The latter are prone to purchase new expensive innovations the evidence for which is treated with sensitivity by researchers, marketers, and licensing agencies mindful of pecuniary influences.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Dr Pargiter (Hobart, Tasmania), Doreen Ledgard, Marie Montague and Sarah Old (Warneford Hospital library) and Ms Karen Butter (Medical Information Pharmacist, Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, UK) for helping track down useful data for this study. Gill Rizzello for her comments on the final manuscript.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Cochrane Schizophrenia Group, Academic Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, University of Leeds
(2)
UK Cochrane Centre
(3)
Safer Custody Group, HM Prison Service, Abell House
(4)
Department of Psychiatry, STAKES/Vasa Central Hospital
(5)
University of Toronto, Humber River Regional Hospital

References

  1. WHO: Essential Medicines 13th edition. WHO Model List 2003. [http://www.who.int/hac/techguidance/pht/essentialmed/en]
  2. WHO: Global Health Statistics Online, 1998. [http://w3.whosea.org/en/section1174/section1199/section1567_6744.htm]
  3. Wysowski DK, Baum C: Antipsychotic drug use in the United States, 1976–1985. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1989, 46: 929-932.PubMedView Article
  4. Burgess S: Emergency drug treatment of disturbed psychotic patients. Auditorium. 1997, 6: 28-30.
  5. Norquist G, Hyman SE: Advances in understanding and treating mental illness: implications for policy. Health Aff. 1999, 18: 32-47. 10.1377/hlthaff.18.5.32.View Article
  6. Odejide AO, Ban TA: Psychotropic drug prescription pattern in a developing country (Nigeria). The need for an essential psychotherapeutic drug list. Int Pharmacopsychiatry. 1982, 17: 163-169.PubMed
  7. Chong MY, Tan CH, Fujii S, S Yang, Ungvari GS, Si T, Chung EK, Sim K, Tsang HY, Shinfuku N: Antipsychotic drug prescription for schizophrenia in East Asia: rationale for change. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2004, 58: 61-67. 10.1111/j.1440-1819.2004.01194.x.PubMedView Article
  8. Prescription Pricing Authority: NHS 2003. [http://www.ppa.org.uk/index.htm]
  9. Adams CE, Bartsch S, Fenton M: Publishing patterns of the four drugs most commonly reported in schizophrenia trials. Schizophr Res. 2004, 67: 268.
  10. Cook RJ, Sackett DL: The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. BMJ. 1995, 310: 452-454.PubMedPubMed CentralView Article
  11. Cole JO, Davis JM: Antipsychotic drugs. The Schizophrenic Syndrome. 1969, New York: Grune & Stratton, 478-568.
  12. Thornley B, Rathbone J, Adams CE, Awad G: Chlorpromazine versus placebo for schizophrenia. Cochrane Database Systematic Review. 2004, CD000284.
  13. Clarke M, Oxman AD: The Cochrane Reviewers Handbook 4.2.0. The Cochrane Library. 2003, 2.
  14. DerSimonian R, Laird N: Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986, 7: 177-188. 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2.PubMedView Article
  15. Altman DG, Bland JM: Detecting skewness from summary information. BMJ. 1996, 313: 1200.PubMedPubMed CentralView Article
  16. Hine FR: Chlorpromazine in schizophrenic withdrawal and in the withdrawn schizophrenic. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1958, 127: 220-227.PubMedView Article
  17. Letemendia F, Harris AD: Chlorpromazine and the untreated chronic schizophrenic: a long-term trial. Br J Psychiatry. 1967, 113: 950-958.PubMedView Article
  18. Hamill WT, Fontana AF: The immediate effects of chlorpromazine in newly admitted schizophrenic patients. Am J Psychiatry. 1975, 132: 1023-1026.PubMedView Article
  19. Tetreault L, Bordeleau JM, Gauthier R, Vulpe M, Lapointe L: Comparative study of TPS-23, chlorpromazine and placebo in chronic schizophrenic patients. Dis Nerv Syst. 1969, 30: 74-84.PubMed
  20. Hall RA, Dunlap DJ: A study of chlorpromazine: methodology and results with chronic semi-disturbed schizophrenics. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1955, 122: 301-314.PubMedView Article
  21. Cole JO, Goldberg SC, Klerman GL, National Institute of Mental Health Psychopharmacology Service Center Collaborative Study Group: Phenothiazine treatment in acute schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1964, 10: 246-261.View Article
  22. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG: Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995, 273: 408-412. 10.1001/jama.273.5.408.PubMedView Article
  23. Grygier P, Waters MA: Chlorpromazine used with an intensive occupational therapy program. Arch Neuro Psychiatr. 1958, 79: 697-705.
  24. Clark M, Dubowski K, Colmore J: The effect of chlorpromazine on serum cholesterol in chronic schizophrenic patients. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1970, 11: 883-889.PubMedView Article
  25. Payne P: A comparison of trifluopromazine, chlorpromazine and a placebo in twenty-one chronic schizophrenic patients. Manit Med Rev. 1960, 196-198.
  26. Prien R, Cole JO: High dose chlorpromazine therapy in chronic schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1968, 18: 482-495.View Article
  27. Reschke RW: Parenteral haloperidol for rapid control of severe, disruptive symptoms of acute schizophrenia. Dis Nerv Syst. 1974, 35: 112-115.PubMed
  28. Clark ML, Huber WK, Kyriakopoulos AA, Ray TS, Colmore JP, Ramsey HR: Evaluation of trifluperidol in chronic schizophrenia. Psychopharmacologia. 1968, 12: 193-203. 10.1007/BF00403773.View Article
  29. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C: Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997, 315: 629-634.PubMedPubMed CentralView Article
  30. Overall JE, Gorham DR: The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Psychol Rep. 1962, 10: 799-812.View Article
  31. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/3/15/prepub

Copyright

© Adams et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2005

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement