Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24294484›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic advances in psychopharmacology2013

A naturalistic comparison of the efficacy and safety of intramuscular olanzapine and intramuscular haloperidol in agitated elderly patients with schizophrenia.

Hidenobu Suzuki, Keishi Gen, Yuki Takahashi

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Hidenobu SuzukiDepartment of Psychiatry, Suzuki Clinic, 3-34-16 Hamadayama, Suginami, Tokyo, 168-0065, Japan.
Keishi Gen
Yuki Takahashi
Gunma Chuo Hospital · JPSuzuki (Japan) · JPTokai University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

efficacyelderly schizophreniaintramuscular haloperidolintramuscular olanzapinesafety

Identifiers

PMID24294484
PMCPMC3840810
OpenAlexW2114459004

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.