The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Antipsychotic Dose Equivalents and Dose-Years: A Standardized Method for Comparing Exposure to Different Drugs
Open accessAbstract
Background A standardized quantitative method for comparing dosages of different drugs is a useful tool for designing clinical trials and for examining the effects of long-term medication side effects such as tardive dyskinesia. Such a method requires establishing dose equivalents. An expert consensus group has published charts of equivalent doses for various antipsychotic medications for first- and second-generation medications. These charts were used in this study. Methods Regression was used to compare each drug in the experts' charts to chlorpromazine and haloperidol and to create formulas for each relationship. The formulas were solved for chlorpromazine 100 mg and haloperidol 2 mg to derive new chlorpromazine and haloperidol equivalents. The formulas were incorporated into our definition of dose-years such that 100 mg/day of chlorpromazine equivalent or 2 mg/day of haloperidol equivalent taken for 1 year is equal to one dose-year. Results All comparisons to chlorpromazine and haloperidol were highly linear with R2 values greater than .9. A power transformation further improved linearity. Conclusions By deriving a unique formula that converts doses to chlorpromazine or haloperidol equivalents, we can compare otherwise dissimilar drugs. These equivalents can be multiplied by the time an individual has been on a given dose to derive a cumulative value measured in dose-years in the form of (chlorpromazine equivalent in mg) × (time on dose measured in years). After each dose has been converted to dose-years, the results can be summed to provide a cumulative quantitative measure of lifetime exposure.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Effectiveness of Antipsychotic Drugs in Patients with Chronic Schizophrenia
Lieberman, J. A., Stroup, T. S., McEvoy, J. P., Swartz, M. S., Rosenheck, R. A., Perkins, D. O., Keefe, R. S. E., Davis, S. M., Davis, C. E., Lebowitz, B. D., et al. (2005) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa051688 · Cited by 5,892
Cited by
Maust, D. T., Kim, H. M., Seyfried, L. S., Chiang, C., Kavanagh, J., Schneider, L. S., & Kales, H. C. (2015) · JAMA Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.3018 · Cited by 617
Barnes, T. R., Drake, R., Paton, C., Cooper, S. J., Deakin, B., Ferrier, I. N., Gregory, C. J., Haddad, P. M., Howes, O. D., Jones, I., et al. (2020) · Journal of Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1177/0269881119889296 · Cited by 606
Siskind, D., McCartney, L., Goldschlager, R., & Kisely, S. (2016) · British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.115.177261 · Cited by 601
Yendiki, A. (2011) · Frontiers in Neuroinformatics · doi:10.3389/fninf.2011.00023 · Cited by 593
Neufeld, K. J., Yue, J., Robinson, T. N., Inouye, S. K., & Needham, D. M. (2016) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/jgs.14076 · Cited by 505
Metadata
- Authors
- Andreasen, N. C., Pressler, M., Nopoulos, P., Miller, D., & Ho, B.-C.
- Venue
- Biological Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-02
- Volume
- 67
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 255-262
- ISSN
- 0006-3223 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2060529079
- Cited by
- 943
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 18.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Antipsychotic Dose Equivalents and Dose-Years: A Standardized Method for Comparing Exposure to Different Drugs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.08.040
- The paper
- Andreasen, N. C., Pressler, M., Nopoulos, P., Miller, D., & Ho, B.-C. (2010). Antipsychotic Dose Equivalents and Dose-Years: A Standardized Method for Comparing Exposure to Different Drugs. Biological Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.08.040
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.