SynthesisActa psychiatrica Scandinavica2026
Involuntary Clozapine Treatment: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Acta psychiatrica Scandinavica, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWe aimed to synthesize the information relevant for clinical practice on involuntary clozapine treatment.
methodsArticles were identified with MEDLINE, Web of Sciences and PsycINFO search from inception through September 2025 (PROSPERO database registration CRD420251234475). We included all articles addressing issues related to involuntary clozapine treatment irrespective of the route of administration, i.e., oral, intra-muscular (IM) or nasogastric. Data were synthesized narratively.
resultsOf the 29 identified articles, most clinical studies (n = 18) on people prescribed involuntary clozapine treatment (n = 236) were case reports/series or chart reviews. IM or nasogastric routes were the last-resort treatment for people with extremely severe psychotic disorders presenting with risky behavior. The decisional process was often lengthy due to the complex legal and ethical issues raised by involuntary treatment and restricted access to the unlicensed IM formulation. In nearly half of cases, the oral route was accepted after the decision to perform IM or nasogastric administration. Pain at the injection site was the most frequent adverse event after IM administration. Transition to this route occurred rapidly in the vast majority of the other cases, most often allowing a dramatic reduction in the severity of target symptoms and coercive measures. Clozapine was maintained orally after the acute phase in the majority of people with involuntary administration.
conclusionsAlthough the body of evidence supporting the use of involuntary clozapine treatment is mostly drawn from small observational studies, their findings suggest that this last-resort option may save the life and promote recovery of people for whom other treatments have failed. Access to IM clozapine is currently restricted in most countries. Whether this barrier to clozapine treatment for severely ill people with impaired decision-making capacities should be overcome in other countries needs to be further addressed. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO database registration CRD420251234475.
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.