ArticleAddiction (Abingdon, England)2026
A call for action: Closing the evidence gap in management of stimulant-induced psychosis.
Article in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative efficacy of aripiprazole and paliperidone to treatment-as-usual in managing stimulant-induced psychosis: a 24-month randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Trial
- Holistic approach to substance-induced psychosis.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2026Article
- Stimulant-induced psychosis requires the same clinical priority as other psychotic disorders.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2026Article
- Keeping stimulant-induced psychosis in sight.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2026Article
- Toward a public health and prevention-oriented approach to stimulant-induced psychosis.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2026Article
- A call for action: Closing the evidence gap in management of stimulant-induced psychosis.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStimulant-induced psychosis (StIP) is emerging as one of most pressing health challenges. Over the past two decades, stimulant-related harms and psychiatric care demands have risen sharply. Individuals with StIP often present with severe agitation and high suicide risk, and up to half progress to chronic psychotic illness within two years. Despite this burden, clinical recommendations remain sparse and largely based on consensus rather than evidence. This article aims to critically appraise current conceptual and therapeutic approaches to StIP, highlight evidence gaps, and outline priorities for research and clinical practice. ARGUMENT: We propose a re-evaluation of StIP nosology, shifting away from DSM-5 distinctions that require symptom presence beyond abstinence and often fail in real-world settings. Management might require stage-specific approaches- acute (safety and short-term antipsychotics), subacute (stabilization and relapse prevention), and long-term (management of recurrent or persistent psychosis)- yet no validated staging models exist. Antipsychotic prescribing remains guided by expert opinion, with unresolved questions around choice of agent, treatment duration, and relapse prevention strategies. Evidence for psychosocial and behavioral interventions is very limited. Individualized care, supported by predictive tools, biomarkers, and longitudinal risk stratification, is essential to identify individuals at highest risk of progression and chronicity while minimizing unnecessary long-term pharmacotherapy.
conclusionsStimulant-induced psychosis (StIP) exemplifies a widening evidence-practice gap. Addressing this requires a coordinated research agenda to address nosology and phenomenology, validate diagnostic algorithms, develop stage-specific management models, and test integrated pharmacological and behavioral strategies. Without such efforts, outcomes will remain poor, and StIP will continue to represent one of psychiatry's most consequential yet neglected syndromes.
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.