Summary of findings 20. HALOPERIDOL compared to COMBINATIONS: e. HALOPERIDOL + RISPERIDONE for psychosis‐induced aggression or agitation.
| HALOPERIDOL compared to COMBINATIONS: e. HALOPERIDOL + RISPERIDONE for psychosis‐induced aggression or agitation | ||||||
| Patient or population: psychosis‐induced aggression or agitation Setting: inpatients. Intervention: HALOPERIDOL Comparison: COMBINATIONS: e. HALOPERIDOL + RISPERIDONE | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with COMBINATIONS: e. HALOPERIDOL + RISPERIDONE | Risk with HALOPERIDOL | |||||
| Tranquillisation or asleep ‐ not reported | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | No study reported this outcome. |
| Repeated need for tranquillisation ‐ not reported | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | No study reported this outcome. |
| Specific behaviour ‐ agitation assessed with: average endpoint scores at 24 hours on PANSS‐EC | MD 3.82 higher (1.35 higher to 6.29 higher) | ‐ | 100 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 2 | ||
|
Global outcome assessed with: no improvement at 72 hours |
Study population | RR 0.38 (0.11 to 1.33) | 100 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 2 | ||
| 160 per 1.000 | 61 per 1.000 (18 to 213) | |||||
|
Adverse effects: specific assessed with akathisia during 14 days |
Study population | RR 0.88 (0.48 to 1.60) | 100 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 2 | ||
| 320 per 1.000 | 282 per 1.000 (154 to 512) | |||||
| Economic outcome ‐ not reported | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | No study reported this outcome. |
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect | ||||||
1 Risk of bias: rated 'serious' ‐ allocation concealment procedures not stated, blinding procedures not stated.
2 Imprecision: rated 'serious' ‐ 95% CIs are wide.