Vitamin E vs placebo: Tardive dyskinesia: No clinically important improvement
VITAMIN E showed no clear difference in tardive dyskinesia: 1. Not improved to a clinically important extent compared with PLACEBO (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
VITAMIN E vs PLACEBO Tardive dyskinesia: 1. Not improved to a clinically important extent · patients with various chronic psychiatric disorders, but mainly schizophrenia, and antipsychotic‐induced tardive… VITAMIN E showed no clear difference in tardive dyskinesia: 1. Not improved to a clinically important extent compared with PLACEBO (low certainty). Vitamin E for antipsychotic‐induced tardive dyskinesia (2018) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.95 [0.89, 1.01] | 6 studies · 264 participants | Low |
VITAMIN E vs PLACEBO Tardive dyskinesia: 1. Not improved to a clinically important extent · patients with neuroleptic‐induced tardive dyskinesia It is very uncertain whether VITAMIN E changes tardive dyskinesia: 1. Not improved to a clinically important extent compared with PLACEBO (very low certainty). Vitamin E for antipsychotic‐induced tardive dyskinesia (2011) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD000209.PUB2, superseded | RR 0.96 [0.9, 1.02] | 6 studies · 256 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitamin E for antipsychotic‐induced tardive dyskinesia 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.