ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Metabolic monitoring among patients with psychotic disorders taking antipsychotics: results of a quality improvement project to address this challenging guideline-practice gap.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMetabolic adverse effects of antipsychotic medications pose significant health risks for patients with psychotic disorders. Despite clinical practice guidelines recommending regular metabolic monitoring, adherence to these recommendations remains suboptimal in psychiatric settings.
objectiveThis quality improvement project aimed to assess the impact of an organisational paper-based metabolic monitoring form (MMF) on monitoring practices for patients with psychotic disorders receiving antipsychotic medications at an outpatient psychiatric clinic in a large Canadian city.
methodsA pre-post intervention study was carried out to assess the impact of the MMF on annual monitoring among 75 randomly selected eligible patients. Metabolic monitoring parameters (blood pressure, weight, waist circumference and glucose and lipid profiles) were reviewed 1 year before and after the introduction of the form.
resultsThe MMF was missing from 10 charts, and despite its presence in the remainder, no improvement was observed in metabolic parameter documentation, and overall guideline adherence remained low. Fasting glucose and HbA1c measurements were most frequently ordered, while blood pressure and weight measurements remained consistently low across both periods.
conclusionsThe implementation of a paper-based MMF alone was insufficient to bridge the guideline-practice gap in metabolic monitoring, highlighting the need for other or concurrent strategies to achieve improvement.
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.