ArticleEmergency (Tehran, Iran)2018
Intravenous Haloperidol versus Midazolam in Management of Conversion Disorder; a Randomized Clinical Trial.
Article in Emergency (Tehran, Iran), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intravenous versus Subcutaneous Midazolam Using Jet-injector in Pediatric Sedation; a Randomized Clinical Trial.Emergency (Tehran, Iran) · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionConversion disorder is a condition in which the patient shows psychological stress in physical ways. This study aimed to compare the effects of haloperidol versus midazolam in patients with conversion disorder.
methodsThis double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted on patients with conversion disorder who had presented to the emergency department, throughout 2015. Patients were randomly divided into two groups and were either treated with 2.5 mg of intravenous (IV) haloperidol or 2.5 mg of IV midazolam. Recovery rate, time to recovery, and side effects of both drugs 1 hour, 24 hours, and 1 week after treatment were compared using SPSS19.
results140 patients were divided into two groups of 70. There were no significant differences between the groups regarding the baseline characteristics. 12 (17.1%) patients who were treated with IV haloperidol experienced drug side effects within 1 hour and 12 (17.1%) within 24 hours, while only 3 (4.3%) patients in IV midazolam experienced side-effects within 1 hour after drug administration (p = 0.026). The symptoms of the disease subsided in 45 (success rate: 64.3%) patients in midazolam and in 64 (success rate: 91.5%) participants in haloperidol group (P<0.001). Mean recovery time was 31.24 ± 7.03 minutes in IV midazolam and 30.53 ± 7.11 minutes in IV haloperidol group (p = 0.592). Absolute risk reduction (ARR) of treating patients with haloperidol compared to midazolam is about 27%.
conclusionThe response of patients to treatment with haloperidol is clearly better than midazolam. Although more transient and minor side-effects were observed in the group treated with haloperidol compared to midazolam group, serious side-effects were rare for both treatments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30584559PMC6289157W2883090089What 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.