SynthesisEuropean archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience2026
Efficacy and safety of Nrf2 activators for schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of adding nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 (Nrf2) activators to antipsychotic treatments for individuals with schizophrenia. The primary outcome was overall symptom improvement. Other efficacy outcomes involve the improvement of positive symptoms, negative and depressive symptoms, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale general subscale (PANSS-G) scores, and cognitive function composite scores and individual cognitive domain scores (only for sulforaphane). Further, we included all-cause discontinuation, adverse event-related discontinuation, incidence of individual adverse events, and changes in blood inflammatory biomarkers, lipid profiles, and glucose levels. Our review included 16 randomized-controlled trials (n = 953, mean age = 35.27 years; 66.74% male). Among these, 15 were placebo-controlled, while the remaining study did not utilize a placebo. This systematic review comprised six studies on ascorbic acid, four on curcumin, two on resveratrol, and four on sulforaphane. Curcumin showed marginal superiority over placebo for the primary outcome (standardized mean difference = - 0.53, 95% confidence interval: -1.08, 0.02); however, non-significant subgroup results (all p > 0.05) with wide confidence intervals across formulations and co-interventions suggest that these findings lack robustness. Curcumin significantly outperformed placebo in reducing positive symptoms, negative symptoms, and PANSS-G scores but did not differ from placebo for other outcomes. Sulforaphane showed a lower all-cause discontinuation rate than placebo, suggesting potential efficacy and better treatment adherence. Additionally, sulforaphane reduced total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglyceride levels, though no significant differences were found in other outcomes. Meta-analysis of efficacy outcomes for ascorbic acid and resveratrol could not be conducted due to insufficient data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42154264What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.