MAIN RESULTS We have no good- quality evidence of the absolute effectiveness of haloperidol for people with long-term aggression .
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 ' .
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 .
BACKGROUND 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 .
OBJECTIVES To examine whether haloperidol alone , administered orally , intramuscularly or intravenously , is an effective treatment for long-term/persistent aggression in psychosis .
Unpublished rating scales: a major source of bias in randomised controlled trials of treatments for schizophrenia.
BACKGROUND A recent review suggested an association between using unpublished scales in clinical trials and finding significant results . AIMS To determine whether such an association existed in schizophrenia trials . METHOD Three hundred trials were r and omly selected from the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group 's Register . All comparisons between treatment groups and control groups using rating scales  were identified . The publication status of each scale was determined and cl aims of a significant treatment effect were recorded . RESULTS Trials were more likely to report that a treatment was superior to control when an unpublished scale was used to make the comparison ( relative risk 1.37 ( 95 % CI 1.12 - 1.68 ) ) . This effect increased when a ' gold-st and ard ' definition of treatment superiority was applied ( RR 1.94 ( 95 % CI 1.35 - 2.79 ) ) . In non-pharmacological trials , one-third of ' gold-st and ard ' cl aims of treatment superiority would not have been made if published scales had been used . CONCLUSIONS Unpublished scales are a source of bias in schizophrenia trials
MAIN RESULTS We have no good- quality evidence of the absolute effectiveness of haloperidol for people with long-term aggression .
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 ' .
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 .
BACKGROUND 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 .
OBJECTIVES To examine whether haloperidol alone , administered orally , intramuscularly or intravenously , is an effective treatment for long-term/persistent aggression in psychosis .