ReviewPharmacy (Basel, Switzerland)2022
A Narrative Review of Studies Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Citalopram with Atypical Antipsychotics for Agitation in Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia (BPSD).
Review in Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative efficacy and safety of antidepressant therapy for the agitation of dementia: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2023Pooled it
- Beyond the Imposter: Deciphering Capgras Syndrome and Multidisciplinary Management.Case reports in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Decreased citalopram concentration caused by enzyme induction effect of rifampin: a case report.Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology · 2025Article
- Establishment and Validation of a Transdermal Drug Delivery System for the Anti-Depressant Drug Citalopram Hydrobromide.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPsychomotor agitation as part of the behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) is one of the common issues found in aged care facilities. The current inadequate management strategies lead to poor functional and medical outcomes. Psychotropic interventions are the current preferred treatment method, but should these medications be the prescribers' first preference? This review aims to compare pharmacological interventions for psychomotor agitation, judging them according to their effectuality and justifiability profiles. This is to be achieved by retrieving information from Randomized Control Trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews.
objectivesThis review evaluates evidence from RCTs, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses of BPSD patients who have taken agitation treatments. Assessing the efficacy of citalopram, other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and antipsychotic treatments were compared to each other for the purpose of improving agitation outcomes and lowering patient side effects.
methodsThis review includes RCT that compared citalopram with one or more atypical antipsychotics or with a placebo, along with systematic reviews comparing citalopram (SSRI) with antipsychotics such as quetiapine, olanzapine, and risperidone. Studies were extracted by searching and accessing databases, such as PubMed, OVID, and Cochrane with restrictions of date from 2000 to 2021 and published in the English language.
conclusionThere are still a limited number of studies including SSRIs for the treatment of agitation in BPSD. SSRIs such as citalopram were associated with a reduction in the symptoms of agitation, and lower risk of adverse effects when compared to antipsychotics. Future studies are required to assess the long-term safety and efficacy of SSRI treatments for agitation in BPSD.
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.