↓ 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 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
109 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 11 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 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 109 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 20%
Student > Bachelor 16 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Researcher 7 6%
Other 7 6%
Other 24 22%
Unknown 23 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 32%
Psychology 14 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 6%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 27 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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
#3,064,029
of 3,064,029 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,260
of 11,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,055
of 387,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#96
of 152 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 3,064,029 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,169 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.9. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 387,304 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 152 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.