SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2013
Haloperidol dose for the acute phase of schizophrenia.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.
- Haloperidol (oral) versus olanzapine (oral) for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Haloperidol discontinuation for people with schizophrenia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Haloperidol versus low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Haloperidol versus placebo for schizophrenia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Ferroptosis in schizophrenia: Mechanisms and therapeutic potentials (Review).Molecular medicine reports · 2025Review
- Japanese Society of Neuropsychopharmacology: "Guideline for Pharmacological Therapy of Schizophrenia".Neuropsychopharmacology reports · 2021Article
- Mapping the evidence on pharmacological interventions for non-affective psychosis in humanitarian non-specialised settings: a UNHCR clinical guidance.BMC medicine · 2017Article
- Antipsychotic use in a resource-limited setting: Findings in an Eastern Cape psychiatric hospital.The South African journal of psychiatry : SAJP : the journal of the Society of Psychiatrists of South Africa · 2017Article
- Cross-sectional comparison of first-generation antipsychotic long-acting injections vs risperidone long-acting injection: patient-rated attitudes, satisfaction and tolerability.Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHaloperidol is a benchmark, accessible antipsychotic drug against which the effects of newer treatments are gauged.
objectivesTo determine the best range of doses for haloperidol for the treatment of people acutely ill with schizophrenia. SEARCH
methodsWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (February 2010), which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected studies if they involved people being treated for acute schizophrenia, randomised to two or more dose ranges of non-depot haloperidol, and if they reported clinically meaningful outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For this update, we inspected all citations and independently re-inspected a sample of citations in order to ensure reliable selection. We resolved any disagreement by discussion, and where doubt remained, we acquired the full-text article for further inspection. We then ordered papers, and reliably re-inspected and quality assessed the full reports, and extracted data. For homogeneous dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. We assumed that people who left the study early or were lost to follow-up had a negative outcome. We calculated mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes that reported ITT, last observation carried forward (LOCF) data. We excluded data if loss to follow-up was greater than 50%. MAIN
resultsWe included 19 trials with 19 different randomised dose comparisons. No studies reported data on relapse rates or quality of life and only one compared low dose (> 1.5 to 3 mg/day) haloperidol to higher dose ranges. Using standard lower dose (> 3 to 7.5 mg/day) did not result in loss of efficacy (no clinically important improvement in global state, versus standard higher dose (> 7.5 to 15 mg/day, n = 48, 1 RCT, RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.8, very-low-quality evidence); versus high dose (> 15 to 35 mg/day, n = 81, 2 RCTs, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.2, very-low-quality evidence). Doses of haloperidol in the range of > 3 to 7.5 mg/day had a lower rate of development of clinically significant extrapyramidal adverse effects than higher doses (clinically significant extrapyramidal adverse effects, versus standard higher dose, n = 64, 2 RCTs, RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.1, very-low-quality evidence); versus high dose, n = 144, 3 RCTs, RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.5 to 0.8, very-low-quality evidence; versus very high dose (> 35 mg/day, n = 86, 2 RCTs, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.1, very-low-quality evidence). None of the other comparisons between dose ranges yielded statistically significant differences, but several, particularly with lower dose ranges, were underpowered to detect clinically meaningful differences. AUTHORS'
conclusionsNoresults were conclusive and all were based on small, short studies of limited quality. However, it would be understandable if clinicians were cautious in prescribing doses in excess of 7.5 mg/day of haloperidol to a person with uncomplicated acute schizophrenia, and if people with schizophrenia were equally reticent to take greater doses. Further research is needed regarding the efficacy and tolerability of the lower dose ranges, especially > 1.5 to 3 mg/day.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.