ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Despite increasing on-label and off-label use of antipsychotics, prescribing antipsychotics to children remains controversial due to uncertainty of their relative benefits and safety. We systematically reviewed the effectiveness and safety of first- (FGA) and second-generation antipsychotics (SGA) for patients aged ≤24 years with psychiatric and behavioral conditions. METHODS: We searched 10 databases from January 1987 to February 2011, gray literature, trial registries, and reference lists. Two reviewers independently selected studies, assessed methodologic quality, and graded the evidence. One reviewer extracted, and a second verified, data. We summarized findings qualitatively and conducted meta-analyses when appropriate. RESULTS: Sixty-four trials and 17 cohort studies were included. Most trials had a high risk of bias; cohort studies had moderate quality. All comparisons of FGAs versus SGAs, FGAs versus FGAs, and FGAs versus placebo had low or insufficient strength of evidence. There was moderate strength of evidence for the following comparisons. Olanzapine caused more dyslipidemia and weight gain, but fewer prolactin-related events, than risperidone. Olanzapine caused more weight gain than quetiapine. Compared with placebo, SGAs improved clinical global impressions (schizophrenia, bipolar and disruptive behavior disorders) and diminished positive and negative symptoms (schizophrenia), behavior symptoms (disruptive behavior disorders), and tics (Tourette syndrome). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first comprehensive review comparing the effectiveness and safety across the range of antipsychotics for children and young adults. The evidence on the comparative benefits and harms of antipsychotics is limited. Some SGAs have a better side effect profile than other SGAs. Additional studies using head-to-head comparisons are needed.
Subject(s)
Antipsychotic Agents/therapeutic use , Mental Disorders/diagnosis , Mental Disorders/drug therapy , Adolescent , Age Factors , Antipsychotic Agents/adverse effects , Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity/diagnosis , Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity/drug therapy , Case-Control Studies , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Male , Mood Disorders/diagnosis , Mood Disorders/drug therapy , Prognosis , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Risk Assessment , Schizophrenia/diagnosis , Schizophrenia/drug therapy , Sex Factors , Treatment Outcome , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Many approaches exist for managing rotator cuff tears. PURPOSE: To compare the benefits and harms of nonoperative and operative interventions on clinically important outcomes in adults with rotator cuff tears. DATA SOURCES: 12 electronic databases (1990 to September 2009), gray literature, trial registries, and reference lists were searched. STUDY SELECTION: Controlled and uncontrolled studies that assessed nonoperative or operative treatments or postoperative rehabilitation for adults with confirmed rotator cuff tears were included. Operative studies in English-language publications and nonoperative and postoperative rehabilitation studies in English, French, or German were considered. Studies were assessed in duplicate. DATA EXTRACTION: 2 reviewers assessed risk for bias by using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. One reviewer rated the evidence by using a modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Data were extracted by one reviewer and verified by another. DATA SYNTHESIS: 137 studies met eligibility criteria. All trials had high risk for bias. Cohort and uncontrolled studies were of moderate quality. Reported functional outcomes did not differ between open versus mini-open repair, mini-open versus arthroscopic repair, arthroscopic repair with versus without acromioplasty, or single-row versus double-row fixation. Earlier return to work was reported for mini-open repair versus open repair and for continuous passive motion with physical therapy versus physical therapy alone. Open repairs showed greater improvement in function than did arthroscopic debridement. Complication rates were low across all interventions. LIMITATIONS: Limited evidence, which was often of low quality, precluded conclusions for most comparisons. Language restrictions may have excluded some relevant studies, and selective outcome reporting may have introduced bias. CONCLUSION: Evidence on the comparative effectiveness and harms of various operative and nonoperative treatments for rotator cuff tears is limited and inconclusive. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
