↓ Skip to main content

Haloperidol for long-term aggression in psychosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 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 long-term aggression in psychosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009830.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Abha Khushu, Melanie J Powney

Abstract

Psychotic disorders can lead some people to become agitated. Characterised by restlessness, excitability and irritability, this can result in verbal and physically aggressive behaviour - and both can be prolonged. Aggression within the psychiatric setting imposes a significant challenge to clinicians and risk to service users; it is a frequent cause for admission to inpatient facilities. If people continue to be aggressive it can lengthen hospitalisation. Haloperidol is used to treat people with long-term aggression. To examine whether haloperidol alone, administered orally, intramuscularly or intravenously, is an effective treatment for long-term/persistent aggression in psychosis. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (July 2011 and April 2015). We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) or double blind trials (implying randomisation) with useable data comparing haloperidol with another drug or placebo for people with psychosis and long-term/persistent aggression. One review author (AK) extracted data. For dichotomous data, one review author (AK) calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a fixed-effect model. One review author (AK) assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE. We have no good-quality evidence of the absolute effectiveness of haloperidol for people with long-term aggression. One study randomising 110 chronically aggressive people to three different antipsychotic drugs met the inclusion criteria. When haloperidol was compared with olanzapine or clozapine, skewed data (n=83) at high risk of bias suggested some advantage in terms of scale scores of unclear clinical meaning for olanzapine/clozapine for 'total aggression'. Data were available for only one other outcome, leaving the study early. When compared with other antipsychotic drugs, people allocated to haloperidol were no more likely to leave the study (1 RCT, n=110, RR 1.37, CI 0.84 to 2.24, low-quality evidence). Although there were some data for the outcomes listed above, there were no data on most of the binary outcomes and none on service outcomes (use of hospital/police), satisfaction with treatment, acceptance of treatment, quality of life or economics. Only one study could be included and most data were heavily skewed, almost impossible to interpret and oflow quality. There were also some limitations in the study design with unclear description of allocation concealment and high risk of bias for selective reporting, so no firm conclusions can be made. This review shows how trials in this group of people are possible - albeit difficult. Further relevant trials are needed to evaluate use of haloperidol in treatment of long-term/persistent aggression in people living with psychosis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Thailand 1 1%
Unknown 69 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 23%
Student > Bachelor 11 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Unspecified 7 10%
Researcher 6 9%
Other 22 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 39%
Unspecified 11 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 11%
Psychology 5 7%
Other 9 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 02 April 2017.
All research outputs
#2,070,051
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,624
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,520
of 368,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#79
of 142 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
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 368,646 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 142 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.