The meta-analysis which I still can't find but is vital to the public and patients expect from treatment in my opinion

Many patients expect treatment for schizophrenia to focus on the delusions and hallucinations. I would expect that their expectation is that the focus of treatment was to remove the delusions and hallucinations. Certainly one friend of mine expected this and that's why she went back on medication.

I've used Google Scholar to look for the right trial. Here's the keywords.
"meta analysis positive symptoms schizophrenia major tranquiliser"

I've varied the word tranquiliser because the drug can also be known as an antipsychotic or a neuroleptic. I haven't found the review which I'm looking for. I would guess the algorithm used in Google Scholar first seeks those words in the title of the paper then looks in the abstract or keyowrds. I don't need to tell it to look only for those words in the title though this option is available. I could be wrong but I trust Google can write a decent search algorithm.

I've tried the search with the words "hallucination" and "delusion" instead of positive symptoms. This is precisely what I'm looking for. A mata-analysis - basically an average from lots of trials - looking solely at the measure of the effect of treatment - any treatment but specifically the antipsychotic - on these two measures. These two are included in the multiple factors in measures like PANSS and BPRS. I would guess every psychiatric measure of schizophrenia would include these two factors though it would vary as to what other measures were included.

Specifically what I'm looking for is an attempt to seek treatments - any treatments - which cease the delusions and hallucinations which I, in my lay opinion, thought were what typified schizophrenia and bad psychosis. It's stuff like hearing voices or auditory hallucinations, experiencing telepathy and other things which other people consider abnormal delusions and hallucinations. The rest, in my opinion, is a result of what happens because of the delusions and because of what people do to what are often gentle souls in a harsh world.

Let me take a quote from Mind's publication on schizophrenia. It's right at the top.
"!What was real and what was not? I couldn’t tell the difference any longer and it was exhausting."
http://www.mind.org.uk/help/diagnoses_and_conditions/schizophrenia#what%20is

To me that quote sounds like a patient talking about what happens to their experience of life after their experience of reality is shattered by the change in awareness or consciousness which happens with initial onset but, for some, can be present for some or all of the rest of their shortened lives.

Guess what? As far as I can see there's been no attempt by the body of psychiatry (I often say "hegemony of psychiatry" because I see it like a power structure) to pursue research into this patient measure of the effect of treatment to cease the delusions and hallucinations.

The focus of the research can be seen by looking at the measures. Here's the Wikipedia page on PANSS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_and_Negative_Syndrome_Scale
And here's the one on BPRS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brief_Psychiatric_Rating_Scale

I'm sure patients have lots of desires from treatment but my friend wanted one thing from her treatment when she returned to taking medication. She wanted the delusions and hallucinations to cease.

There was nothing her psychiatrist could do but try different medications, combinations of medications and high doses before opting for clozapine - a very dangerous drug - which still doesn't cease the delusions and hallucinations in all patents. (In fact he probably wouldn't have opted for clozapine if the rest of the behavioural symptoms subsided but the delusions and hallucinations still continued to plague her life).

I wonder why I can't find this review of previous trials? Note my use of the word "hegemony" when I describe the body or movement of psychiatry. It is a power structure and I would guess many psychiatrist might retort that this research doesn't matter because schizophrenia, to them, is more than simply the effect of an internal delusion and hallucination in a shit of a world which crushes the beautiful thing which most schizophrenics are (but the public know so little about). Those psychiatrist can suck on my chocolate salty balls. (A reference to a song in South Park which is all about different meanings to words. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnNYXgV7L-c)

Let's consider a different but similar so-called disorder, manic depression. It's similar because a lot of schizophrenics experience the symptoms which manic depressives experience and vice versa. (This, I think, is described as Kraepelin’s dichotomy). Labels aside, what's important is what the treatment does. Manic depression is a mood disorder and the treatment takes away mood or emotion. This is what the public and patients expect is treatment for bipolar disorder.

Things are very different for schizophrenia. In fact from my lengthy reading into the topic the diagnosis has been used for many things. I've given away my copy of Bentall's Madness Explained and can't find my other signed copy so can't give examples to detail how the diagnosis is used for other reasons other than people who experienced disintegration of thought processes and of emotional responsiveness. The latter definition is nothing to do with split mind but what was meant by the term schizophrenia when it was coined by Eugen Bleuler in the early 20th century (wrongly or poorly in my opinion) as different from Emil Kraeplin's dementia praecox (which was also probably wrong but I don't know much about the definition). The diagnosis is, in practice, used for many other nefarious reasons to incacerate or drug people using a chemical restraint drug, reasons which are more akin to enforcement of social norms or temporal judgements of society (such as dealing with promiscuous women at a time when this was unacceptabe) than anything doctors should be doing.

The evidence behind the treatment using the so-called antipsychotic doesn't focus on what my friend wanted. It focuses on the expectations of the power of psychiatrists in whatever time in history or culture in the world. This leads me to many thoughts about psychiatry but there's an important one: what do patients want and expect from their treatment?

A manic depressive who accepts there is something wrong with have a wide and intense spectrum of emotions expects their treatment to take this wide spectrum away. What do schizophrenics want?

And when will psychiatrists start basing their research on what patients want rather than what their power structure wants?

I hope these are good research questions from the two years I've been working alone on the treatment of schizophrenia. It is purely just a starting point. There is also the problem of the fucked up society which causes the harm to these beautiful human beings.