Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Clinical safety

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Neuropsychiatric symptoms such as agitation and delusions occur commonly in elderly patients with dementia and often cause significant distress. Data on treatment efficacy are strongest for atypical antipsychotics, but these agents must be used with great caution. Adverse effects in patients with dementia include an increased risk of mortality and cerebrovascular events, as well as metabolic effects, extrapyramidal symptoms, falls, cognitive worsening, cardiac arrhythmia, and pneumonia. Conventional antipsychotics may pose an even greater safety risk. No clear efficacy evidence exists to support the use of alternative psychotropic classes (e.g., antidepressants, anticonvulsants), although they may be safer options. An antipsychotic trial is warranted when nonpharmacological intervention is unsuccessful and neuropsychiatric symptoms or associated behaviors cause severe distress or pose a significant safety risk. Before an atypical antipsychotic is started, a comprehensive assessment should be performed to rule out medical causes of the neuropsychiatric symptoms and to ascertain whether any contributing environmental or caregiver factors are present. Risks, benefits, and alternatives should be discussed with the patient and surrogate decision maker, with an opportunity given to ask questions. Dosages should be the lowest necessary, and metabolic parameters should be regularly monitored. Face-to-face visits are important to monitor response, tolerance, and the need for continued treatment. For patients in whom neuropsychiatric symptoms have been much improved or have been in remission for 3-6 months, a discontinuation trial should be considered. Through careful selection of appropriate patients for treatment, education of patients and caregivers, and close monitoring, safety risks can be minimized.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 41/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 24 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 41 of 100. Total 41 of 100.24 of the 58 points we could judge = 41 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The American journal of psychiatry)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 2012 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 22952071)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 24 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100.
Total 41 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Steinberg, M., & Lyketsos, C. G. (2012). Atypical antipsychotic use in patients with dementia: managing safety concerns. The American journal of psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12030342

Vancouver

Steinberg M, Lyketsos CG. Atypical antipsychotic use in patients with dementia: managing safety concerns. The American journal of psychiatry. 2012. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12030342. PMID: 22952071.

BibTeX

@article{steinberg2012-22952071,
  author  = {Steinberg, M. and Lyketsos, C. G.},
  title   = {{Atypical antipsychotic use in patients with dementia: managing safety concerns}},
  journal = {The American journal of psychiatry},
  year    = {2012},
  doi     = {10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12030342},
  pmid    = {22952071},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12030342}
}

Related studies in Clinical safety

Similar studies

More on Clinical safety

See all studies in Clinical safety →