Cited by 59Schizophrenia research and treatmentAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research

Antipsychotics and the risk of cerebrovascular accident: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Open access
Hsu, Wan-Ting, Esmaily-Fard, Amin, Lai, Chih-Cheng, Zala, Darshan, Lee, Sie-Huei, Chang, Shy-Shin, Lee, Chien-Chang·2017·Journal of the American Medical Directors Association

Abstract

Background Studies investigating the association between antipsychotic use and the risk of cerebrovascular accident (CVA) showed inconsistent results.Aim Conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate whether use of antipsychotics is associated with increased risk of CVA.Methods Major electronic databases were searched from 1970 to October 2016 for observational studies investigating the risk of CVA among users of antipsychotics. Pooled estimates of odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained by random effects meta-analysis.Results Of 1171 citations identified, 10 studies were considered eligible. Significant increase in risk of CVA was associated with first-generation antipsychotics (OR 1.49; 95% CI 1.24-1.77) but not with second-generation antipsychotics (OR 1.31; 95% CI 0.74-2.30). Use of any antipsychotics in patients with dementia was associated with a low risk of CVA (OR 1.17; 95% CI 1.08-1.26).Conclusions The available evidence suggests use of with first-generation antipsychotics as opposed to second-generation antipsychotics significantly increased the risk of CVA.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jamda.2017.02.020

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hsu, W.-T., Esmaily-Fard, A., Lai, C.-C., Zala, D., Lee, S.-H., Chang, S.-S., & Lee, C.-C.
Affiliations
  • National Taiwan University Hospital (TW)
  • The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
  • Chi Mei Medical Center (TW)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Chang Gung University (TW)
Corresponding author
Lee, Chien-Chang
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Directors Association
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-08
Volume
18
Issue
8
Pages
692-699
ISSN
1525-8610 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2606310353
Cited by
59
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2
FWCI
1.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Directors Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Acute Ischemic Stroke Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Keywords
antipsychotic drugs, stroke, stroke risk, typical antipsychotics, atypical antipsychotics, dementia, adverse drug reactions
MeSH terms
Dementia, Humans, Antipsychotic Agents, Odds Ratio, Databases, Factual, Risk Assessment, Stroke

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