↓ Skip to main content

Haloperidol for agitation in dementia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2002
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
267 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Haloperidol for agitation in dementia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2002
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002852
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edmund Lonergan, Jay Luxenberg, John M Colford, Jacqueline Birks

Abstract

Agitation includes wandering, crying out, abusive vocalization, and assaultive behavior and occurs in up to 70% of patients with dementia. Although the neuroleptic haloperidol has been used for decades to control disruptive behavior in psychotic and demented patients, the effectiveness of this drug for agitated dementia remains in question. The first meta-analysis on the effectiveness of haloperidol for agitated dementia, published in 1990, was limited in scope and was unable to provide clear guidelines for the use of haloperidol for demented patients who are agitated. Meta-analyses in 1998 and 2000 examined haloperidol compared with other neuroleptics as well as with placebo and omitted a number of databases, including non-English language publications. To determine the effect of haloperidol, compared with placebo, in the control of agitated dementia and to make recommendations for future research in this area a more widely based, yet more highly focussed review was carried out. The main objective was to determine whether evidence supports the use of haloperidol to treat agitation in demented patients. The CDCIG Specialized Register was searched to identify all available reports on haloperidol treatment of agitated dementia. We examined randomized, placebo-controlled trials, with concealed allocation, where subjects' dementia and agitation were assessed. Trials involving treatment of less than one week were not included. 1. Two reviewers extracted data from included trials. 2. Data were pooled, where possible, and analysed using appropriate statistical methods. 3. Odds ratios or average differences were calculated. 4. Only 'intention to treat' data were included. Where a cross-over design was employed (Devanand, 1998), only the initial phase of the study was used to compare haloperidol versus placebo. 5. Sensitivity analysis was applied to heterogeneity of results and to gauge the effect of the included studies of small sample size. 6. In addition to the overall meta-analysis, individual analyses of the reports were carried out to examine the effect of degree of dementia, dose of haloperidol, and duration of therapy on agitated dementia. Analysis included the following groups: All patients treated with haloperidol compared with placebo. There were five included trials. All studies stated "intention to treat" analysis of their results. Three studies were from the United States, and two studies were from Europe. Two studies examined patients with various forms of dementia, and three studies included only patients with diagnosed Alzheimer's dementia. 1. Overall meta-analysis of the response of agitated patients to haloperidol, compared with controls, showed no improvement in agitation. There is some evidence that haloperidol helps to control aggression. Adverse reactions and dropouts were more frequent among haloperidol treated patients, compared with controls. This meta-analysis provided no information about the relationship between the degree of dementia, the kind of agitation manifested, or the dosage and duration of therapy with haloperidol and response to treatment of demented patients with agitation. 2. The results of this meta-analysis were too broad to permit specific recommendations for treatment of agitated dementia with haloperidol. 3. Higher dose haloperidol, or prolonged haloperidol (12 weeks compared with 3 - 6 weeks) was associated with increased side effects, largely related to Parkinsonian symptoms of rigidity and bradykinesia. 1. Haloperidol appeared to provide no improvement in agitation among demented patients compared with placebo, but side effects were frequent. 2. Dropout rates were higher for haloperidol compared with placebo treated patients, suggesting that side effects led to discontinuation of treatment in some patients. 3. Because of the wide focus of this meta-analysis, not enough information was provided to permit recommendations linking haloperidol treatment of agitated dementia to degree of dementia, manifestations of agitation, or dosage and duration of treatment of haloperidol. 4. Individual analysis of reports indicated that higher dose haloperidol (more than 2 mg per day) may have been more effective than lower dose haloperidol (less than 2 mg per day) in controlling aggression, but not other manifestations of agitation, among patients with mild to moderate dementia. 5. Similar analysis suggested that prolonged therapy with haloperidol (more than 3 - 6 wks) or higher dosage (more than 2 mg per day) was more likely to result in side effects than were short term therapy (3 weeks) or lower dose haloperidol (less than 2 mg per day). 6. The reports provided too little information to permit interpretation of the effect of degree or type of dementia on response to haloperidol. Except for a favorable response of aggression to haloperidol, no other manifestations of agitated dementia were found to have improved following therapy with haloperidol, compared with controls.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 267 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Iceland 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 259 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 15%
Student > Bachelor 26 10%
Researcher 25 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 7%
Other 58 22%
Unknown 76 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 99 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 6%
Psychology 12 4%
Neuroscience 12 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 4%
Other 37 14%
Unknown 82 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 December 2016.
All research outputs
#13,401,381
of 22,743,667 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,080
of 12,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,603
of 121,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#29
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,743,667 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,315 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 121,095 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.