ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Antipsychotic prescribing patterns in a state psychiatric hospital with predominantly forensic admissions.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There are currently no published studies evaluating antipsychotic prescribing patterns in state hospital settings in the United States. This data is important to review since state hospitals involuntarily commit patients with serious mental illness (SMI) to receive treatment with antipsychotic medications, which are associated with a multitude of dose-dependent adverse effects. Methods: This cross-sectional study describes antipsychotic prescribing patterns at a single state psychiatric hospital with predominantly forensic admissions. Data was collected via chart review at a single point in time, including demographic data and clinical characteristics such as admission type, neuropsychiatric diagnoses, length of stay, antipsychotic selection and dosing, and total number of scheduled antipsychotics. If the total daily dose of the scheduled antipsychotic was greater than the recommended typical maximum dose, it was considered 'high-dose' antipsychotic use. Results: Among 212 state hospital admissions, nearly two-thirds of patients were prescribed ≥ 1 antipsychotic at either the recommended typical maximum dose (N=76; 35.8%) or above the typical maximum dose (N=62; 29.2%). Several patients were prescribed antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP) (two scheduled antipsychotics [N = 76; 35.8%]; three scheduled antipsychotics [N = 13; 6.1%]). About one-third of patients were prescribed olanzapine (N = 76; 35.8%), and about a quarter of patients were prescribed clozapine (N = 51; 24.1%) and/or paliperidone (including Invega Sustenna) (N = 49; 23.1%). One-fifth of patients were prescribed a first-generation antipsychotic (N = 43; 20.3%). Nearly one-third of patients were prescribed a long-acting injectable antipsychotic (LAIA) (N = 69; 32.5%). Conclusion: High-dose antipsychotic use and APP was common in this U.S. state psychiatric hospital. Larger, multicenter studies are needed to determine how antipsychotic prescribing patterns vary between U.S. state hospitals. Testing the development and implementation of antipsychotic stewardship programs in state hospital settings is recommended to establish best practices for monitoring antipsychotic use patterns and associated health outcomes.
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.