ArticleThe mental health clinician2024
Comparison of intramuscular haloperidol and other short-acting injectable antipsychotics for management of acute agitation in an adult inpatient psychiatry unit.
Article in The mental health clinician, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: There is no consensus on the optimal antipsychotic for acute agitation. Whereas haloperidol is frequently used and has proven efficacy, second generation antipsychotics show similar efficacy and improved safety and tolerability. This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of short-acting intramuscular (IM) haloperidol versus other IM antipsychotics for acute agitation in adults admitted to an inpatient psychiatry unit. Methods: This was a retrospective medical record review of patients who received 1 or more doses of a short-acting IM antipsychotic, including chlorpromazine, haloperidol, olanzapine, or ziprasidone. The primary endpoint was the need for subsequent IM antipsychotic(s) or physical restraint within 2 hours of the initial IM antipsychotic. Secondary endpoints assessed outcomes at 24 hours and adverse events. Results: One hundred six patients were included. Four patients in the haloperidol group and 0 patients in the other antipsychotic group received an additional IM antipsychotic or required physical restraints within 2 hours (5.3% versus 0%, Discussion: Haloperidol was used more frequently than other short-acting IM antipsychotics. Whereas the effectiveness at 2 hours was not significantly different between groups, patients who received haloperidol were more likely to experience adverse events and were more often subjected to polypharmacy with benzodiazepines and/or diphenhydramine. This study further supports the use of olanzapine and ziprasidone for acute agitation in patients hospitalized in inpatient psychiatry.
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.