Summary of findings 21. HALOPERIDOL compared to COMBINATIONS: f. OLANZAPINE + MAGNESIUM VALPROATE for psychosis‐induced aggression or agitation.
| HALOPERIDOL compared to COMBINATIONS: f. OLANZAPINE + MAGNESIUM VALPROATE for psychosis‐induced aggression or agitation | ||||||
| Patient or population: psychosis‐induced aggression or agitation Setting: inpatients. Intervention: HALOPERIDOL Comparison: COMBINATIONS: f. OLANZAPINE + MAGNESIUM VALPROATE | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with COMBINATIONS: f. OLANZAPINE + MAGNESIUM VALPROATE | 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 72 hours on PANSS‐EC | MD 0.04 lower (1.33 lower to 1.25 higher) | ‐ | 64 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1 2 | ||
| Global outcome assessed with: no improvement | Study population | RR 1.06 (0.38 to 2.95) | 64 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1 2 | ||
| 182 per 1.000 | 193 per 1.000 (69 to 536) | |||||
| Adverse effects assessed with: one or more drug‐related adverse events | Low | RR 3.06 (1.62 to 5.79) | 64 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1 2 | ||
| 100 per 1.000 | 306 per 1.000 (162 to 579) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 240 per 1.000 | 734 per 1.000 (389 to 1.000) | |||||
| High | ||||||
| 500 per 1.000 | 1000 per 1.000 (810 to 1.000) | |||||
| 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, small study.
2 Imprecision: rated 'very serious' ‐ small study, 95% CI cross the no effect area.