ArticleTherapeutic advances in psychopharmacology2013
A naturalistic comparison of the efficacy and safety of intramuscular olanzapine and intramuscular haloperidol in agitated elderly patients with schizophrenia.
Article in Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antipsychotic Drugs and the Risk of Diabetic Complications: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Efficacy and Safety of Ziprasidone Injection vs Haloperidol Injection for Agitation in Patients with Acute Schizophrenia.Alpha psychiatry · 2025Article
- [Comparison of sublingual and intravenous administration of lorazepam in psychiatric emergencies in emergency medical services].Der Anaesthesist · 2019Article
- Safety and effectiveness of rapid-acting intra-muscular olanzapine for agitation associated with schizophrenia - Japan postmarketing surveillance study.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2018Article
- Effectiveness and safety of oral olanzapine treatment transitioned from rapid-acting intramuscular olanzapine for agitation associated with schizophrenia.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study was a comparative investigation of the clinical efficacy and safety of intramuscular (IM) olanzapine and IM haloperidol in agitated elderly patients with schizophrenia at 2 hours postdose.
methodsThe subjects were 23 inpatients who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). Their clinical symptoms were assessed using Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale Excited Component (PANSS-EC), PANSS and Agitation Calmness Evaluation Scale (ACES), and their safety were assessed using the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS), Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale (BARS), Drug-Induced Extrapyramidal Symptoms Scale (DIEPSS) and laboratory tests.
resultsThe mean reduction from baseline on the PANSS-EC total score, the PANSS total score and the ACES score were significantly greater in the IM olanzapine injection group than in the IM haloperidol injection group. The mean changes from baseline on the AIMS score, the BARS score and the DIEPSS total score were significantly better in the IM olanzapine injection group than in the IM haloperidol injection group. No serious adverse events such as paralytic ileus, diabetic ketoacidosis, neuroleptic malignant syndrome or tardive dyskinesia occurred between the two groups.
conclusionThe results of this study suggest the possibility that agitated elderly patients may result in superior efficacy and safety after IM olanzapine without serious adverse events in comparison with IM haloperidol.
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.