Shape-Reconfigurable Ferrofluids.

Ferrofluids (FFs) can adapt their shape to a magnetic field. However, they cannot maintain their shape when the magnetic field is removed. Here, with a magneto-responsive and reconfigurable interfacial self-assembly (MRRIS) process, we show that FFs can be structured by a magnetic field and maintain their shape, like solids, after removing the magnetic field. The competing self-assembly of magnetic and nonmagnetic nanoparticles at the liquid interface endow FFs with both reconfigurability and structural stability. By manipulating the external magnetic field, we show that it is possible to "write" and "erase" the shape of the FFs remotely and repeatedly. To gain an in-depth understanding of the effect of MRRIS on the structure of FFs, we systematically study the shape variation of these liquids under both the static and dynamic magnetic fields. Our study provides a simple yet novel way of manipulating FFs and opens opportunities for the fabrication of all-liquid devices.

Using Aggregation to Chaperone Nanoparticles Across Fluid Interfaces.

Nanoparticles (NPs) transfer is usually induced by adding ligands to modify NP surfaces, but aggregation of NPs oftentimes hampers the transfer. Here, we show that aggregation during NP phase transfer does not necessarily result in transfer failure. Using a model system comprising gold NPs and amphiphilic polymers, we demonstrate an unusual mechanism by which NPs can undergo phase transfer from the aqueous phase to the organic phase via a single-aggregation-single pathway. Our discovery challenges the conventional idea that aggregation inhibits NP transfer and provides an unexpected pathway for transferring larger-sized NPs (>20 nm). The charged amphiphilic polymers effectively act as chaperons for the NP transfer and offer a unique way to manipulate the dispersion and distribution of NPs in two immiscible liquids. Moreover, by intentionally jamming the NP-polymer assembly at the liquid/liquid interface, the transfer process can be inhibited.

Risk factors for POD24 in patients with previously untreated follicular lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Progression of disease within 24 months (POD24) is strongly associated with a poor outcome in patients with follicular lymphoma (FL). Our study aimed to identify the potential risk factors for POD24 in patients with FL. Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched from the earliest record to September 2020. Studies investigating the prognostic factors for POD24 in patients with newly diagnosed grade 1-3a FL were included. Among 10,014 pieces of literature, a total of 90 studies investigating 82 risk factors were included for qualitative analysis. Meta-analyses were performed in 31 studies with 11 factors. Results showed that elevated sIL-2R, ß2m and LDH, total metabolic tumour volume > 510 cm3, vitamin D < 20 ng/mL, grade 3a and lymphoma-associated macrophages/high-power field ≥ 15 were significantly associated with an increased risk of POD24. No significant association was found between POD24 and the ALC/AMC ratio, sex, T effector signature or EZH2 genetic alteration. Additionally, minimal residual disease, Ki-67, PD-1 and TP53 were analysed narratively. Overall, this is the first study that comprehensively analysed the prognostic factors associated with POD24 in FL patients. We have confirmed the significance value of several common prognostic factors as well as others not commonly included in clinical study, helping to construct an integrated and more efficient model.

Comparison of two different GSI scanning protocols in head and neck CT angiography: Image quality and radiation dose.

OBJECTIVES: To compare image quality and radiation dose of computed tomography angiography (CTA) of the head and neck in patients using two Gemstone Spectral Imaging (GSI) scanning protocols. METHODS: A total of 100 patients who underwent head-neck CTA were divided into two groups (A and B) according to the scanning protocols, with 50 patients in each group. The patients in group A underwent GSI scanning protocol 1 (GSI profile: head and neck CTA), while those in group B underwent GSI scanning protocol 2 (GSI profile: chest 80 mm). All images were reconstructed using 40% and 70% pre- and post-adaptive level statistical iterative reconstruction V (pre-ASiR-V and post-ASiR-V) algorithms, respectively. The CT dose index (CTDIvol) and dose-length (DLP) product were recorded and the mean value was calculated and converted to the effective dose. CT values, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of all images were calculated. Additionally, subjective image evaluation was conducted by two independent radiologists using a five-point scoring method. All data were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the CT values, SNR, CNR, and subjective score between groups A and B (p > 0.05); however, the mean effective dose (1.2±0.1 mSv) in group B was 45.5% lower than that in group A (2.2±0.2 mSv) (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: GSI scanning protocol 2 could more effectively reduce the radiation dose in head-neck CT angiography while maintaining image quality compared to GSI scanning protocol 1.

Comparing feasibility of different tube voltages and different concentrations of contrast medium in coronary CT angiography of overweight patients.

OBJECTIVES: To compare image quality, radiation dose, and iodine intake of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) acquired by wide-detector using different tube voltages and different concentrations of contrast medium (CM) for overweight patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 150 overweight patients (body mass index≥25 kg/m2) who underwent CCTA are enrolled and divided into three groups according to scan protocols namely, group A (120 kVp, 370 mgI/ml CM); group B (100 kVp, 350 mgI/ml CM); and group C (80 kVp, 320 mgI/ml CM). The CT values, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and figure-of-merit (FOM) of all images are calculated. Images are subjectively assessed using a 5-point scale. In addition, the CT dose index volume (CTDIvol) and dose length product (DLP) of each patient are recorded. The effective radiation dose (ED) is also calculated. Above data are then statistically analyzed. RESULTS: The mean CT values, SNR, CNR, and subjective image quality of group A are significantly lower than those of groups B and C (P < 0.001), but there is no significant difference between groups B and C (P > 0.05). FOMs show a significantly increase trend from group A to C (P < 0.001). The ED values and total iodine intake in groups B and C are 30.34% and 68.53% and 10.22% and 16.85% lower than those in group A, respectively (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The lower tube voltage and lower concentration of CM based on wide-detector allows for significant reduction in iodine load and radiation dose in CCTA for overweight patients comparing to routine scan protocols. It also enhances signal intensity of CCTA and maintains image quality.

Hydromorphone for cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of the original Cochrane Review first published in Issue 10, 2016. For people with advanced cancer, the prevalence of pain can be as high as 90%. Cancer pain is a distressing symptom that tends to worsen as the disease progresses. Evidence suggests that opioid pharmacotherapy is the most effective of these therapies. Hydromorphone appears to be an alternative opioid analgesic which may help relieve these symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To determine the analgesic efficacy of hydromorphone in relieving cancer pain, as well as the incidence and severity of any adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers in November 2020. We applied no language, document type or publication status limitations to the search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared hydromorphone with placebo, an alternative opioid or another active control, for cancer pain in adults and children. Primary outcomes were participant-reported pain intensity and pain relief; secondary outcomes were specific adverse events, serious adverse events, quality of life, leaving the study early and death. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data. We calculated risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary outcomes on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. We estimated mean difference (MD) between groups and 95% CI for continuous data. We used a random-effects model and assessed risk of bias for all included studies. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created three summary of findings tables. MAIN RESULTS: With four new identified studies, the review includes a total of eight studies (1283 participants, with data for 1181 participants available for analysis), which compared hydromorphone with oxycodone (four studies), morphine (three studies) or fentanyl (one study). All studies included adults with cancer pain, mean age ranged around 53 to 59 years and the proportion of men ranged from 42% to 67.4%. We judged all the studies at high risk of bias overall because they had at least one domain with high risk of bias. We found no studies including children. We did not complete a meta-analysis for the primary outcome of pain intensity due to skewed data and different comparators investigated across the studies (oxycodone, morphine and fentanyl). Comparison 1: hydromorphone compared with placebo We identified no studies comparing hydromorphone with placebo. Comparison 2: hydromorphone compared with oxycodone Participant-reported pain intensity We found no clear evidence of a difference in pain intensity (measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS)) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with oxycodone, but the evidence is very uncertain (3 RCTs, 381 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Participant-reported pain relief We found no studies reporting participant-reported pain relief. Specific adverse events We found no clear evidence of a difference in nausea (RR 1.13 95% CI 0.74 to 1.73; 3 RCTs, 622 participants), vomiting (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.94; 3 RCTs, 622 participants), dizziness (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.44; 2 RCTs, 441 participants) and constipation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.19; 622 participants) (all very low-certainty evidence) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with oxycodone, but the evidence is very uncertain. Quality of life We found no studies reporting quality of life. Comparison 3: hydromorphone compared with morphine Participant-reported pain intensity We found no clear evidence of a difference in pain intensity (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) or VAS)) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with morphine, but the evidence is very uncertain (2 RCTs, 433 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Participant-reported pain relief We found no clear evidence of a difference in the number of clinically improved participants, defined by 50% or greater pain relief rate, in the hydromorphone group compared with the morphine group, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.18; 1 RCT, 233 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Specific adverse events At 24 days of treatment, morphine may reduce constipation compared with hydromorphone, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.17; 1 RCT, 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found no clear evidence of a difference in nausea (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.30; 1 RCT, 200 participants), vomiting (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.31; 1 RCT, 200 participants) and dizziness (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.88; 1 RCT, 200 participants) (all very low-certainty evidence) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with morphine, but the evidence is very uncertain. Quality of life We found no studies reporting quality of life. Comparison 4: hydromorphone compared with fentanyl Participant-reported pain intensity We found no clear evidence of a difference in pain intensity (measured by numerical rating scale (NRS)) at 60 minutes in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with fentanyl, but the evidence is very uncertain (1 RCT, 82 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Participant-reported pain relief We found no studies reporting participant-reported pain relief. Specific adverse events We found no studies reporting specific adverse events. Quality of life We found no studies reporting quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence of the benefits and harms of hydromorphone compared with other analgesics is very uncertain. The studies reported some adverse events, such as nausea, vomiting, dizziness and constipation, but generally there was no clear evidence of a difference between hydromorphone and morphine, oxycodone or fentanyl for this outcome. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of hydromorphone for cancer pain in comparison with other analgesics on the reported outcomes. Further research with larger sample sizes and more comprehensive outcome data collection is required.

Between-laboratory reproducibility of time-lapse embryo selection using qualitative and quantitative parameters: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To investigate the between-laboratory reproducibility of embryo selection/deselection effectiveness using qualitative and quantitative time-lapse parameters. METHODS: A systematic search was performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (up to February 2020) without restriction on date, language, document type, and publication status. Measuring outcomes included implantation, blastulation, good-quality blastocyst formation, and euploid blastocyst. RESULTS: We detected 6 retrospective cohort studies externally validating the first clinical time-lapse model (Meseguer) emphasizing quantitative parameters, of which 3 (including one involving 2 independent centers) were included for the pooled analysis. Receiver operating characteristics analysis showed reduced predictive power of the model when either including or not including sister clinic validation. Fifteen cohort studies evaluating qualitative parameters were included for meta-analysis, and the mean Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was 5.3. Overall, meta-analysis showed significantly adverse association between the presence of ≥ 1 cleavage abnormalities and embryo implantation rates (11 studies, n = 7266; RR = 0.39[0.28, 0.55]95% CI; I2 = 57%). Further analysis showed adverse impacts of direct cleavage (7 studies, n = 7065; RR = 0.28 [0.15, 0.54] 95% CI; I2 = 46%), reverse cleavage (2 studies, n = 3622; RR = 0.16 [0.03, 0.75] 95% CI; I2 = 0%), chaotic cleavage (2 studies, n = 3643; RR = 0.11 [0.02, 0.69] 95% CI; I2 = 24%), and multinucleation (5 studies, n = 2576; RR = 0.59 [0.50, 0.69] 95% CI; I2 = 0%), but not the < 6 intercellular contact points at the 4-cell stage (1 study, n = 185; RR = 0.17 [0.02, 1.15] 95% CI). CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative time-lapse parameters are reliably associated with embryo developmental potential among laboratories, whereas the reproducibility of time-lapse embryo selection model that emphasizes quantitative parameters may be compromised when externally applied.

Peer support for people with schizophrenia or other serious mental illness.

BACKGROUND: Peer support provides the opportunity for peers with experiential knowledge of a mental illness to give emotional, appraisal and informational assistance to current service users, and is becoming an important recovery-oriented approach in healthcare for people with mental illness. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of peer-support interventions for people with schizophrenia or other serious mental disorders, compared to standard care or other supportive or psychosocial interventions not from peers. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials on 27 July 2016 and 4 July 2017. There were no limitations regarding language, date, document type or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected all randomised controlled clinical studies involving people diagnosed with schizophrenia or other related serious mental illness that compared peer support to standard care or other psychosocial interventions and that did not involve 'peer' individual/group(s). We included studies that met our inclusion criteria and reported useable data. Our primary outcomes were service use and global state (relapse). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The authors of this review complied with the Cochrane recommended standard of conduct for data screening and collection. Two review authors independently screened the studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion until the authors reached a consensus. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary data, and the mean difference and its 95% CI for continuous data. We used a random-effects model for analyses. We assessed the quality of evidence and created a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This review included 13 studies with 2479 participants. All included studies compared peer support in addition to standard care with standard care alone. We had significant concern regarding risk of bias of included studies as over half had an unclear risk of bias for the majority of the risk domains (i.e. random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, attrition and selective reporting). Additional concerns regarding blinding of participants and outcome assessment, attrition and selective reporting were especially serious, as about a quarter of the included studies were at high risk of bias for these domains.All included studies provided useable data for analyses but only two trials provided useable data for two of our main outcomes of interest, and there were no data for one of our primary outcomes, relapse. Peer support appeared to have little or no effect on hospital admission at medium term (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.75; participants = 19; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence) or all-cause death in the long term (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.31; participants = 555; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). There were no useable data for our other prespecified important outcomes: days in hospital, clinically important change in global state (improvement), clinically important change in quality of life for peer supporter and service user, or increased cost to society.One trial compared peer support with clinician-led support but did not report any useable data for the above main outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently, very limited data are available for the effects of peer support for people with schizophrenia. The risk of bias within trials is of concern and we were unable to use the majority of data reported in the included trials. In addition, the few that were available, were of very low quality. The current body of evidence is insufficient to either refute or support the use of peer-support interventions for people with schizophrenia and other mental illness.

Electroconvulsive therapy for treatment-resistant schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) involves the induction of a seizure by the administration of an electrical stimulus via electrodes usually placed bilaterally on the scalp and was introduced as a treatment for schizophrenia in 1938. However, ECT is a controversial treatment with concerns about long-term side effects such a memory loss. Therefore, it is important to determine its clinical efficacy and safety for people with schizophrenia who are not responding to their treatment. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to assess the effects (benefits and harms) of ECT for people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia.Our secondary objectives were to determine whether ECT produces a differential response in people: who are treated with unilateral compared to bilateral ECT; who have had a long (more than 12 sessions) or a short course of ECT; who are given continuation or maintenance ECT; who are diagnosed with well-defined treatment-resistant schizophrenia as opposed to less rigorously defined treatment-resistant schizophrenia (who would be expected to have a greater affective component to their illness). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials including clinical trial registries on 9 September 2015 and 4 August 2017. There were no limitations on language, date, document type, or publication status for the inclusion of records in the register. We also inspected references of all the included records to identify further relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials investigating the effects of ECT in people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence intervals (CIs), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between the groups and its 95% CIs. We employed the fixed-effect model for all analyses. We assessed risk of bias for the included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using the GRADE framework. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 studies involving 1285 participants (1264 completers with an average age of 18 to 46 years) with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. We rated most studies (14/15, 93.3%) as at high risk of bias due to issues related to the blinding of participants and personnel. Our main outcomes of interest were: (i) clinically important response to treatment; (ii) clinically important change in cognitive functioning; (iii) leaving the study early; (iv) clinically important change in general mental state; (v) clinically important change in general functioning; (vi) number hospitalised; and (vii) death. No trial reported data on death.The included trials reported useable data for four comparisons: ECT plus standard care compared with sham-ECT added to standard care; ECT plus standard care compared with antipsychotic added to standard care; ECT plus standard care compared with standard care; and ECT alone compared with antipsychotic alone.For the comparison ECT plus standard care versus sham-ECT plus standard care, only average endpoint BPRS (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale) scores from one study were available for mental state; no clear difference between groups was observed (short term; MD 3.60, 95% CI -3.69 to 10.89; participants = 25; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence). One study reported data for service use, measured as number readmitted; there was a clear difference favouring the ECT group (short term; RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.85; participants = 25; studies = 1; low-quality evidence).When ECT plus standard care was compared with antipsychotics (clozapine) plus standard care, data from one study showed no clear difference for clinically important response to treatment (medium term; RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.58; participants = 162; studies = 1; low-quality evidence). Clinically important change in mental state data were not available, but average endpoint BPRS scores were reported. A positive effect for the ECT group was found (short-term BPRS; MD -5.20, 95% CI -7.93 to -2.47; participants = 162; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence).When ECT plus standard care was compared with standard care, more participants in the ECT group had a clinically important response (medium term; RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.75 to 2.42; participants = 819; studies = 9; moderate-quality evidence). Data on clinically important change in cognitive functioning were not available, but data for memory deterioration were reported. Results showed that adding ECT to standard care may increase the risk of memory deterioration (short term; RR 27.00, 95% CI 1.67 to 437.68; participants = 72; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups in satisfaction and acceptability of treatment, measured as leaving the study early (medium term; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.63; participants = 354; studies = 3; very low-quality evidence). Only average endpoint scale scores were available for mental state (BPRS) and general functioning (Global Assessment of Functioning). There were clear differences in scores, favouring ECT group for mental state (medium term; MD -11.18, 95% CI -12.61 to -9.76; participants = 345; studies = 2; low-quality evidence) and general functioning (medium term; MD 10.66, 95% CI 6.98 to 14.34; participants = 97; studies = 2; very low-quality evidence).For the comparison ECT alone versus antipsychotics (flupenthixol) alone, only average endpoint scale scores were available for mental state and general functioning. Mental state scores were similar between groups (medium-term BPRS; MD -0.93, 95% CI -6.95 to 5.09; participants = 30; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence); general functioning scores were also similar between groups (medium-term Global Assessment of Functioning; MD -0.66, 95% CI -3.60 to 2.28; participants = 30; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-quality evidence indicates that relative to standard care, ECT has a positive effect on medium-term clinical response for people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. However, there is no clear and convincing advantage or disadvantage for adding ECT to standard care for other outcomes. The available evidence was also too weak to indicate whether adding ECT to standard care is superior or inferior to adding sham-ECT or other antipsychotics to standard care, and there was insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of ECT alone. More good-quality evidence is needed before firm conclusions can be made.

Investigation of microorganisms involved in kefir biofilm formation.

Kefir is a natural fermentation agent composed of various microorganisms. To address the mechanism of kefir grain formation, we investigated the microbial role in forming kefir biofilms. The results showed that a biofilm could be formed in kefir-fermented milk and the biofilm forming ability reached the maximum at 13 days. The strains Kluyveromyces marxianus, Lactococcus lactis, Leuconostoc mesenteroides, Lactobacillus kefiri, Lactobacillus sunkii and Acetobacter orientalis were isolated from kefir biofilms by the streak-plate method. These microorganisms were analysed with respect to biofilm forming properties, including their surface characterisation (hydrophobicity and zeta potentials) and the microbial aggregation. The results indicated that Klu. marxianus possessed the strongest biofilm forming properties with the strongest hydrophobicity, lowest zeta potential and greatest auto-aggregation ability. When Klu. marxianus and Ac. orientalis were co-cultured with kefir LAB strains respectively, it was found that mixing Klu. marxianus with Lb. sunkii produced the highest co-aggregation ability. These results elucidated the mechanism of kefir biofilm formation and the microorganisms involved.

Cognitive behavioural therapy plus standard care versus standard care for people with schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is a psychosocial treatment that aims to re-mediate distressing emotional experiences or dysfunctional behaviour by changing the way in which a person interprets and evaluates the experience or cognates on its consequence and meaning. This approach helps to link the person's feelings and patterns of thinking which underpin distress. CBT is now recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) as an add-on treatment for people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. This review is also part of a family of Cochrane CBT reviews for people with schizophrenia. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of cognitive behavioural therapy added to standard care compared with standard care alone for people with schizophrenia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (up to March 6, 2017). This register is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including AMED, BIOSIS CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings, with no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records into the register. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected all randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) involving people diagnosed with schizophrenia or related disorders, which compared adding CBT to standard care with standard care given alone. Outcomes of interest included relapse, rehospitalisation, mental state, adverse events, social functioning, quality of life, and satisfaction with treatment.We included studies fulfilling the predefined inclusion criteria and reporting useable data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We complied with the Cochrane recommended standard of conduct for data screening and collection. Where possible, we calculated relative risk (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary data and mean difference (MD) and its 95% confidence interval for continuous data. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: This review now includes 60 trials with 5,992 participants, all comparing CBT added to standard care with standard care alone. Results for the main outcomes of interest (all long term) showed no clear difference between CBT and standard care for relapse (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.00; participants = 1538; studies = 13, low-quality evidence). Two trials reported global state improvement. More participants in the CBT groups showed clinically important improvement in global state (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.84; participants = 82; studies = 2 , very low-quality evidence). Five trials reported mental state improvement. No differences in mental state improvement were observed (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.02; participants = 501; studies = 5, very low-quality evidence). In terms of safety, adding CBT to standard care may reduce the risk of having an adverse event (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.72; participants = 146; studies = 2, very low-quality evidence) but appears to have no effect on long-term social functioning (MD 0.56, 95% CI -2.64 to 3.76; participants = 295; studies = 2, very low-quality evidence, nor on long-term quality of life (MD -3.60, 95% CI -11.32 to 4.12; participants = 71; study = 1, very low-quality evidence). It also has no effect on long-term satisfaction with treatment (measured as 'leaving the study early') (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.12; participants = 1945; studies = 19, moderate-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Relative to standard care alone, adding CBT to standard care appears to have no effect on long-term risk of relapse. A very small proportion of the available evidence indicated CBT plus standard care may improve long term global state and may reduce the risk of adverse events. Whether adding CBT to standard care leads to clinically important improvement in patients' long-term mental state, quality of life, and social function remains unclear. Satisfaction with care (measured as number of people leaving the study early) was no higher for participants receiving CBT compared to participants receiving standard care. It should be noted that although much research has been carried out in this area, the quality of evidence available is poor - mostly low or very low quality and we still cannot make firm conclusions until more high quality data are available.

Cognitive behavioural therapy plus standard care versus standard care plus other psychosocial treatments for people with schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is a psychosocial treatment that aims to help individuals re-evaluate their appraisals of their experiences that can affect their level of distress and problematic behaviour. CBT is now recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) as an add-on treatment for people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Other psychosocial therapies that are often less expensive are also available as an add-on treatment for people with schizophrenia. This review is also part of a family of Cochrane Reviews on CBT for people with schizophrenia. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of CBT compared with other psychosocial therapies as add-on treatments for people with schizophrenia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study Based Register of Trials (latest 6 March, 2017). This register is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including AMED, BIOSIS CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings, with no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records into the register. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving people with schizophrenia who were randomly allocated to receive, in addition to their standard care, either CBT or any other psychosocial therapy. Outcomes of interest included relapse, global state, mental state, adverse events, social functioning, quality of life and satisfaction with treatment. We included trials meeting our inclusion criteria and reporting useable data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We reliably screened references and selected trials. Review authors, working independently, assessed trials for methodological quality and extracted data from included studies. We analysed dichotomous data on an intention-to-treat basis and continuous data with 60% completion rate. Where possible, for binary data we calculated risk ratio (RR), for continuous data we calculated mean difference (MD), all with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a fixed-effect model for analyses unless there was unexplained high heterogeneity. We assessed risk of bias for the included studies and used the GRADE approach to produce a 'Summary of findings' table for our main outcomes of interest. MAIN RESULTS: The review now includes 36 trials with 3542 participants, comparing CBT with a range of other psychosocial therapies that we classified as either active (A) (n = 14) or non active (NA) (n = 14). Trials were often small and at high or unclear risk of bias. When CBT was compared with other psychosocial therapies, no difference in long-term relapse was observed (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.29; participants = 375; studies = 5, low-quality evidence). Clinically important change in global state data were not available but data for rehospitalisation were reported. Results showed no clear difference in long term rehospitalisation (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.14; participants = 943; studies = 8, low-quality evidence) nor in long term mental state (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.01; participants = 249; studies = 4, low-quality evidence). No long-term differences were observed for death (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.62 to 3.98; participants = 627; studies = 6, low-quality evidence). Only average endpoint scale scores were available for social functioning and quality of life. Social functioning scores were similar between groups (long term Social Functioning Scale (SFS): MD 8.80, 95% CI -4.07 to 21.67; participants = 65; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence), and quality of life scores were also similar (medium term Modular System for Quality of Life (MSQOL): MD -4.50, 95% CI -15.66 to 6.66; participants = 64; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). There was a modest but clear difference favouring CBT for satisfaction with treatment - measured as leaving the study early (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99; participants = 2392; studies = 26, low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence based on data from randomised controlled trials indicates there is no clear and convincing advantage for cognitive behavioural therapy over other - and sometimes much less sophisticated and expensive - psychosocial therapies for people with schizophrenia. It should be noted that although much research has been carried out in this area, the quality of evidence available is mostly low or of very low quality. Good quality research is needed before firm conclusions can be made.

Cholinesterase inhibitors for the treatment of delirium in non-ICU settings.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common clinical syndrome defined as alterations in attention with an additional disturbance in cognition or perception, which develop over a short period of time and tend to fluctuate during the course of the episode. Delirium is commonly treated in hospitals or community settings and is often associated with multiple adverse outcomes such as increased cost, morbidity, and even mortality. The first-line intervention involves a multicomponent non-pharmacological approach that includes ensuring effective communication and reorientation in addition to providing reassurance or a suitable care environment. There are currently no drugs approved specifically for the treatment of delirium. Clinically, however, various medications are employed to provide symptomatic relief, such as antipsychotic medications and cholinesterase inhibitors, among others. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of cholinesterase inhibitors for treating people with established delirium in a non-intensive care unit (ICU) setting. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, which is the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register, on 26 October 2017. We also cross-checked the reference lists of included studies to identify any potentially eligible trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials, published or unpublished, reported in English or Chinese, which compared cholinesterase inhibitors to placebo or other drugs intended to treat people with established delirium in a non-ICU setting. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were duration of delirium, severity of delirium, and adverse events. The secondary outcomes were use of rescue medications, persistent cognitive impairment, length of hospitalisation, institutionalisation, mortality, cost of intervention, leaving the study early, and quality of life. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs); for continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) with 95% CIs. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE to generate a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We included one study involving 15 participants from the UK. The included participants were diagnosed with delirium based on the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) criteria. Eight males and seven females were included, with a mean age of 82.5 years. Seven of the 15 participants had comorbid dementia at baseline. The risk of bias was low in all domains.The study compared rivastigmine with placebo. We did not find any clear differences between the two groups in terms of duration of delirium (MD -3.6, 95% CI -15.6 to 8.4), adverse events (nausea, RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.29), use of rescue medications (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.1), mortality (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.56), and leaving the study early (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.07 to 11.54). Evidence was not available regarding the severity of delirium, persistent cognitive impairment, length of hospitalisation, cost of intervention, or other predefined secondary outcomes.The quality of evidence is low due to the very small sample size. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of cholinesterase inhibitors for the treatment of delirium in non-ICU settings. No clear benefits or harms associated with cholinesterase inhibitors were observed when compared with placebo due to the lack of data. More trials are required.

Benzodiazepines for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation.

BACKGROUND: Acute psychotic illness, especially when associated with agitated or violent behaviour, can require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. In several countries, clinicians often use benzodiazepines (either alone or in combination with antipsychotics) for this outcome. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether benzodiazepines, alone or in combination with other pharmacological agents, is an effective treatment for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation when compared with placebo, other pharmacological agents (alone or in combination) or non-pharmacological approaches. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (January 2012, 20 August 2015 and 3 August 2016), inspected reference lists of included and excluded studies, and contacted authors of relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing benzodiazepines alone or in combination with any antipsychotics, versus antipsychotics alone or in combination with any other antipsychotics, benzodiazepines or antihistamines, for people who were aggressive or agitated due to psychosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We reliably selected studies, quality assessed them and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of risk ratio (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effect model. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) between groups. If there was heterogeneity, this was explored using a random-effects model. We assessed risk of bias and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty trials including 695 participants are now included in the review. The trials compared benzodiazepines or benzodiazepines plus an antipsychotic with placebo, antipsychotics, antihistamines, or a combination of these. The quality of evidence for the main outcomes was low or very low due to very small sample size of included studies and serious risk of bias (randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding were not well conducted in the included trials, 30% of trials (six out of 20) were supported by pharmaceutical institutes). There was no clear effect for most outcomes.Benzodiazepines versus placeboOne trial compared benzodiazepines with placebo. There was no difference in the number of participants sedated at 24 hours (very low quality evidence). However, for the outcome of global state, clearly more people receiving placebo showed no improvement in the medium term (one to 48 hours) (n = 102, 1 RCT, RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.97, very low quality evidence). Benzodiazepines versus antipsychoticsWhen compared with haloperidol, there was no observed effect for benzodiazepines for sedation by 16 hours (n = 434, 8 RCTs, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.54, low quality evidence). There was no difference in the number of participants who had not improved in the medium term (n = 188, 5 RCTs, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.11, low quality evidence). However, one small study found fewer participants improved when receiving benzodiazepines compared with olanzapine (n = 150, 1 RCT, RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.18, very low quality evidence). People receiving benzodiazepines were less likely to experience extrapyramidal effects in the medium term compared to people receiving haloperidol (n = 233, 6 RCTs, RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.41, low quality evidence).Benzodiazepines versus combined antipsychotics/antihistaminesWhen benzodiazepine was compared with combined antipsychotics/antihistamines (haloperidol plus promethazine), there was a higher risk of no improvement in people receiving benzodiazepines in the medium term (n = 200, 1 RCT, RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.05, low quality evidence). However, for sedation, the results were controversial between two groups: lorazepam may lead to lower risk of sedation than combined antipsychotics/antihistamines (n = 200, 1 RCT, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.98, low quality evidence); while, midazolam may lead to higher risk of sedation than combined antipsychotics/antihistamines (n = 200, 1 RCT, RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.23, low quality evidence).Other combinationsData comparing benzodiazepines plus antipsychotics versus benzodiazepines alone did not yield any results with clear differences; all were very low quality evidence. When comparing combined benzodiazepines/antipsychotics (all studies compared haloperidol) with the same antipsychotics alone (haloperidol), there was no difference between groups in improvement in the medium term (n = 185, 4 RCTs, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.46, low quality evidence), but sedation was more likely in people who received the combination therapy (n = 172, 3 RCTs, RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.67,very low quality evidence). Only one study compared combined benzodiazepine/antipsychotics with antipsychotics; however, this study did not report our primary outcomes. One small study compared combined benzodiazepines/antipsychotics with combined antihistamines/antipsychotics. Results showed a higher risk of no clinical improvement (n = 60, 1 RCT, RR 25.00, 95% CI 1.55 to 403.99, very low quality evidence) and sedation status (n = 60, 1 RCT, RR 12.00, 95% CI 1.66 to 86.59, very low quality evidence) in the combined benzodiazepines/antipsychotics group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence from RCTs for the use of benzodiazepines alone is not good. There were relatively few good data. Most trials were too small to highlight differences in either positive or negative effects. Adding a benzodiazepine to other drugs does not seem to confer clear advantage and has potential for adding unnecessary adverse effects. Sole use of older antipsychotics unaccompanied by anticholinergic drugs seems difficult to justify. Much more high-quality research is still needed in this area.

De-escalation techniques for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation.

BACKGROUND: Aggression is a disposition, a willingness to inflict harm, regardless of whether this is behaviourally or verbally expressed and regardless of whether physical harm is sustained.De-escalation is a psychosocial intervention for managing people with disturbed or aggressive behaviour. Secondary management strategies such as rapid tranquillisation, physical intervention and seclusion should only be considered once de-escalation and other strategies have failed to calm the service user. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of de-escalation techniques in the short-term management of aggression or agitation thought or likely to be due to psychosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (latest search 7 April, 2016). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials using de-escalation techniques for the short-term management of aggressive or agitated behaviour. We planned to include trials involving adults (at least 18 years) with a potential for aggressive behaviour due to psychosis, from those in a psychiatric setting to those possibly under the influence of alcohol or drugs and/or as part of an acute setting as well. We planned to include trials meeting our inclusion criteria that provided useful data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors inspected all abstracts of studies identified by the search process. As we were unable to include any studies, we could not perform data extraction and analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Of the 345 citations that were identified using the search strategies, we found only one reference to be potentially suitable for further inspection. However, after viewing the full text, it was excluded as it was not a randomised controlled trial. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Using de-escalation techniques for people with psychosis induced aggression or agitation appears to be accepted as good clinical practice but is not supported by evidence from randomised trials. It is unclear why it has remained such an under-researched area. Conducting trials in this area could be influenced by funding flow, ethical concerns - justified or not - anticipated pace of recruitment as well the difficulty in accurately quantifying the effects of de-escalation itself. With supportive funders and ethics committees, imaginative trialists, clinicians and service-user groups and wide collaboration this dearth of randomised research could be addressed.

MHY1485 activates mTOR and protects osteoblasts from dexamethasone.

Dexamethasone (Dex) exerts cytotoxic effects to cultured osteoblasts. The potential effect of MHY1485, a small-molecular mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) activator, against the process was studied here. In both osteoblastic MC3T3-E1 cells and primary murine osteoblasts, treatment with MHY1485 significantly ameliorated Dex-induced cell death and apoptosis. mTOR inhibition, through mTOR kinase inhibitor OSI-027 or mTOR shRNAs, abolished MHY1485-mediated osteoblast cytoprotection against Dex. Intriguingly, activation of mTOR complex (mTORC1), but not mTORC2, is required for MHY1485's anti-Dex activity. mTORC1 inhibitors (rapamycin and RAD001) or Raptor knockdown almost reversed MHY1485-induced osteoblast cytoprotection. mTORC2 inhibition, via shRNA knockdown of Rictor, failed to affect MHY1485's activity in MC3T3-E1 cells. Further studies showed that MHY1485 treatment in MC3T3-E1 cells and primary murine osteoblasts significantly inhibited Dex-induced mitochondrial death pathway activation, the latter was tested by mitochondrial depolarization, cyclophilin D-ANT-1 association and cytochrome C cytosol release. Together, these results suggest that MHY1485 activates mTORC1 signaling to protect osteoblasts from Dex.

Fluphenazine (oral) versus atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Fluphenazine is a typical antipsychotic drug from the phenothiazine group of antipsychotics. It has been commonly used in the treatment of schizophrenia, however, with the advent of atypical antipsychotic medications, use has declined over the years. OBJECTIVES: To measure the outcomes (both beneficial and harmful) of the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of oral fluphenazine versus atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Studies (25 April 2013). For the economic search, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Health Economic Database (CSzGHED) on 31 January 2014 SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fluphenazine (oral) with any other oral atypical antipsychotics. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors worked independently to inspect citations and assess the quality of the studies and to extract data. For homogeneous dichotomous data we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), and calculated the mean differences (MDs) for continuous data. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) to rate the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Four studies randomising a total of 202 people with schizophrenia are included. Oral fluphenazine was compared with oral amisulpride, risperidone, quetiapine and olanzapine.Comparing oral fluphenazine with amisulpride, there was no difference between groups for mental state using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) (1 RCT, n = 57, MD 5.10 95% CI -2.35 to 12.55, very low-quality evidence), nor was there any difference in numbers leaving the study early for any reason (2 RCTs, n = 98, RR 1.19 95% CI 0.63 to 2.28, very low-quality evidence). More people required concomitant anticholinergic medication in the fluphenazine group compared to amisulpride (1 RCT, n = 36, RR 7.82 95% CI 1.07 to 57.26, very low-quality evidence). No data were reported for important outcomes including relapse, changes in life skills, quality of life or cost-effectiveness.Comparing oral fluphenazine with risperidone, data showed no difference between groups for 'clinically important response' (1 RCT, n = 26, RR 0.67 95% CI 0.13 to 3.35, very low-quality evidence) nor leaving the study early due to inefficacy (1 RCT, n = 25, RR 1.08 95% CI 0.08 to 15.46, very low-quality evidence). No data were reported data for relapse; change in life skills; quality of life; extrapyramidal adverse effects; or cost-effectiveness.Once again there was no difference when oral fluphenazine was compared with quetiapine for clinically important response (1 RCT, n = 25, RR 0.62 95% CI 0.12 to 3.07, very low-quality evidence), nor leaving the study early for any reason (1 RCT, n = 25, RR 0.46 95% CI 0.05 to 4.46, very low-quality evidence). No data were reported for relapse; clinically important change in life skills; quality of life; extrapyramidal adverse effects; or cost-effectiveness.Compared to olanzapine, fluphenazine showed no superiority for clinically important response (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 1.33 95% CI 0.86 to 2.07, very low-quality evidence), in incidence of akathisia (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 3.00 95% CI 0.90 to 10.01, very low-quality evidence) or in people leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 3.00 95% CI 0.33 to 27.23, very low-quality evidence). No data were reported for relapse; change in life skills; quality of life; or cost-effectiveness. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Measures of clinical response and mental state do not highlight differences between fluphenazine and amisulpride, risperidone, quetiapine or olanzapine. Largely measures of adverse effects are also unconvincing for substantive differences between fluphenazine and the newer drugs. All included trials carry a substantial risk of bias regarding reporting of adverse effects and this bias would have favoured the newer drugs. The four small short included studies do not provide much clear information about the relative merits or disadvantages of oral fluphenazine compared with newer atypical antipsychotics.

Chlorpromazine versus atypical antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Chlorpromazine is an aliphatic phenothiazine, which is one of the widely-used typical antipsychotic drugs. Chlorpromazine is reliable for its efficacy and one of the most tested first generation antipsychotic drugs. It has been used as a 'gold standard' to compare the efficacy of older and newer antipsychotic drugs. Expensive new generation drugs are heavily marketed worldwide as a better treatment for schizophrenia, but this may not be the case and an unnecessary drain on very limited resources. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of chlorpromazine with atypical or second generation antipsychotic drugs, for the treatment of people with schizophrenia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register up to 23 September 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared chlorpromazine with any other atypical antipsychotic drugs for treating people with schizophrenia. Adults (as defined in each trial) diagnosed with schizophrenia, including schizophreniform, schizoaffective and delusional disorders were included in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently screened the articles identified in the literature search against the inclusion criteria and extracted data from included trials. For homogeneous dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous data, we determined the mean difference (MD) values and 95% CIs. We assessed the risk of bias in included studies and rated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 71 studies comparing chlorpromazine to olanzapine, risperidone or quetiapine. None of the included trials reported any data on economic costs. 1. Chlorpromazine versus olanzapineIn the short term, there appeared to be a significantly greater clinical response (as defined in each study) in people receiving olanzapine (3 RCTs, N = 204; RR 2.34, 95% CI 1.37 to 3.99, low quality evidence). There was no difference between drugs for relapse (1 RCT, N = 70; RR 1.5, 95% CI 0.46 to 4.86, very low quality evidence), nor in average endpoint score using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) for mental state (4 RCTs, N = 245; MD 3.21, 95% CI -0.62 to 7.05,very low quality evidence). There were significantly more extrapyramidal symptoms experienced amongst people receiving chlorpromazine (2 RCTs, N = 298; RR 34.47, 95% CI 4.79 to 248.30,very low quality evidence). Quality of life ratings using the general quality of life interview (GQOLI) - physical health subscale were more favourable with people receiving olanzapine (1 RCT, N = 61; MD -10.10, 95% CI -13.93 to -6.27, very low quality evidence). There was no difference between groups for people leaving the studies early (3 RCTs, N = 139; RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.45 to 6.40, very low quality evidence). 2. Chlorpromazine versus risperidoneIn the short term, there appeared to be no difference in clinical response (as defined in each study) between chlorpromazine or risperidone (7 RCTs, N = 475; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.34, low quality of evidence), nor in average endpoint score using the BPRS for mental state 4 RCTs, N = 247; MD 0.90, 95% CI -3.49 to 5.28, very low quality evidence), or any observed extrapyramidal adverse effects (3 RCTs, N = 235; RR 1.7, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.40,very low quality evidence). Quality of life ratings using the QOL scale were significantly more favourable with people receiving risperidone (1 RCT, N = 100; MD -14.2, 95% CI -20.50 to -7.90, very low quality evidence). There was no difference between groups for people leaving the studies early (one RCT, N = 41; RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.11, very low quality evidence). 3. Chlorpromazine versus quetiapineIn the short term, there appeared to be no difference in clinical response (as defined in each study) between chlorpromazine or quetiapine (28 RCTs, N = 3241; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06, moderate quality evidence) nor in average endpoint score using the BPRS for mental state (6 RCTs, N = 548; MD -0.18, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.88, very low quality evidence). Quality of life ratings using the GQOL1-74 scale were significantly more favourable with people receiving quetiapine (1 RCT, N = 59; MD -6.49, 95% CI -11.30 to -1.68, very low quality evidence). Significantly more people receiving chlorpromazine experienced extrapyramidal adverse effects (8 RCTs, N = 644; RR 8.03, 95% CI 4.78 to 13.51, low quality of evidence). There was no difference between groups for people leaving the studies early in the short term (12 RCTs, N = 1223; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.41,moderate quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most included trials included inpatients from hospitals in China. Therefore the results of this Cochrane review are more applicable to the Chinese population. Mostincluded trials were short term studies, therefore we cannot comment on the medium and long term use of chlorpromazine compared to atypical antipsychotics. Low qualityy evidence suggests chlorpromazine causes more extrapyramidal adverse effects. However, all studiesused varying dose ranges, and higher doses would be expected to be associated with more adverse events.

Risperidone versus placebo for schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Risperidone is the first new-generation antipsychotic drug made available in the market in its generic form. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effects, safety and cost-effectiveness of risperidone compared with placebo for treating schizophrenia. SEARCH METHODS: On 19th October 2015, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register, which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. We checked the references of all included studies and contacted industry and authors of included studies for relevant studies and data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing oral risperidone with placebo treatments for people with schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies, assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR), and the 95% confidence interval (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and the 95% CI. We created a 'Summary of findings table' using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). MAIN RESULTS: The review includes 15 studies (N = 2428). Risk of selection bias is unclear in most of the studies, especially concerning allocation concealment. Other areas of risk such as missing data and selective reporting also caused some concern, although not affected on the direction of effect of our primary outcome, as demonstrated by sensitivity analysis. Many of the included trials have industry sponsorship of involvement. Nonetheless, generally people in the risperidone group are more likely to achieve a significant clinical improvement in mental state (6 RCTs, N = 864, RR 0.64, CI 0.52 to 0.78, very low-quality evidence). The effect withstood, even when three studies with >50% attrition rate were removed from the analysis (3 RCTs, N = 589, RR 0.77, CI 0.67 to 0.88). Participants receiving placebo were less likely to have a clinically significant improvement on Clinical Global Impression scale (CGI) than those receiving risperidone (4 RCTs, N = 594, RR 0.69, CI 0.57 to 0.83, very low-quality evidence). Overall, the risperidone group was 31% less likely to leave early compared to placebo group (12 RCTs, N = 2261, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.78, low-quality evidence), but Incidence of significant extrapyramidal side effect was more likely to occur in the risperidone group (7 RCTs, N = 1511, RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.15, very low-quality evidence).When risperidone and placebo were augmented with clozapine, there is no significant differences between groups for clinical response as defined by a less than 20% reduction in PANSS/BPRS scores (2 RCTs, N = 98, RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.42, low-quality evidence) and attrition (leaving the study early for any reason) (3 RCTs, N = 167, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.42, low quality evidence). One study measured clinically significant responses using the CGI, no effect was evident (1 RCT, N = 68, RR 1.12 95% CI 0.87 to 1.44, low quality evidence). No data were available for extrapyramidal adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on low quality evidence, risperidone appears to be benefitial in improving mental state compared with placebo, but it also causes more adverse events. Eight out of the 15 included trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies. The currently available evidence isvery low to low quality.