Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41407750›Full record

ReviewSchizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany)2025

Helping people to discontinue antipsychotics: if, when and how.

Joanna Moncrieff, Mark Abie Horowitz

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Joanna MoncrieffDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK. j.moncrieff@ucl.ac.uk.
Mark Abie HorowitzResearch and Development Department, North East London NHS Foundation Trust (NELFT), Essex, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1318-2029

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The default position in the treatment of psychotic conditions is that lifelong treatment is required after multiple episodes, with some portion of patients able to stop after a single episode. However, there are reasons to question this consensus, including that not everyone who stops antipsychotics relapses, the protective effects of antipsychotics may have been exaggerated due to the possibility that withdrawal itself is associated with adverse effects, including relapse, there is little evidence that antipsychotics target a pathological mechanism and their adverse effects may outweigh their benefits for some users. Recent pragmatic trials that employ a gradual reduction strategy give mixed results. They highlight that relapse is still a potential risk, but there may be gains in terms of social functioning in the long-term. There are no consistent factors that enable identification of people who might be able to discontinue antipsychotics more successfully, suggesting this option should be more widely offered. A gradual, hyperbolic approach to tapering has been proposed to reduce the adverse effects of withdrawal and relapse on stopping-approximated, for example, by reductions of 5-10% of the most recent dose every month. Patients should be supported to make decisions about long-term antipsychotic treatment based on weighing up the pros and cons of antipsychotic effects, in the light of the evidence base and the individual's priorities. Given that increasing duration of treatment is likely to increase the risk of withdrawal on stopping, long-term antipsychotic treatment should be minimized where possible.

Identifiers

PMID41407750
PMCPMC12711913

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.