Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 314

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Haloperidol prophylaxis decreases delirium incidence in elderly patients after noncardiac surgery: A randomized controlled trial*

Wang, Wei, Li, Hong-Liang, Wang, Dong-Xin, Zhu, Xi, Li, Shuang-Ling, Yao, Gai-Qi, Chen, Kai-Sheng, Gu, Xiu-E, Zhu, Sai-Nan·2012·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of short-term low-dose intravenous haloperidol for delirium prevention in critically ill elderly patients after noncardiac surgery. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled trial in two centers. SETTING: Intensive care units of two large tertiary teaching hospitals. PATIENTS: Four hundred fifty-seven patients 65 yrs or older who were admitted to the intensive care unit after noncardiac surgery. INTERVENTION: Haloperidol (0.5 mg intravenous bolus injection followed by continuous infusion at a rate of 0.1 mg/h for 12 hrs; n = 229) or placebo (n = 228) was randomly administered from intensive care unit admission. MEASURES: The primary end point was the incidence of delirium within the first 7 days after surgery. Secondary end points included time to onset of delirium, number of delirium-free days, length of intensive care unit stay, all-cause 28-day mortality, and adverse events. Delirium was assessed using the confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit. RESULTS: The incidence of delirium during the first 7 days after surgery was 15.3% (35/229) in the haloperidol group and 23.2% (53/228) in the control group (p = .031). The mean time to onset of delirium and the mean number of delirium-free days were significantly longer (6.2 days [95% confidence interval 5.9-6.4] vs. 5.7 days [95% confidence interval 5.4-6.0]; p = .021; and 6.8 ± 0.5 days vs. 6.7 ± 0.8 days; p = .027, respectively), whereas the median length of intensive care unit stay was significantly shorter (21.3 hrs [95% confidence interval 20.3-22.2] vs. 23.0 hrs [95% confidence interval 20.9-25.1]; p = .024) in the haloperidol group than in the control group. There was no significant difference with regard to all-cause 28-day mortality between the two groups (0.9% [2/229] vs. 2.6% [6/228]; p = .175). No drug-related side effects were documented. CONCLUSIONS: For elderly patients admitted to intensive care unit after noncardiac surgery, short-term prophylactic administration of low-dose intravenous haloperidol significantly decreased the incidence of postoperative delirium. The therapy was well-tolerated.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ccm.0b013e3182376e4f

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 54 references

Cited by

See all 314

Metadata

Authors
Wang, W., Li, H.-L., Wang, D.-X., Zhu, X., Li, S.-L., Yao, G.-Q., Chen, K.-S., Gu, X.-E., & Zhu, S.-N.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2012-03
Volume
40
Issue
3
Pages
731-739
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1980026247
Cited by
314
References
54
FWCI
23.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Haloperidol prophylaxis decreases delirium incidence in elderly patients after noncardiac surgery: A randomized controlled trial*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/ccm.0b013e3182376e4f
The paper
Wang, W., Li, H.-L., Wang, D.-X., Zhu, X., Li, S.-L., Yao, G.-Q., Chen, K.-S., Gu, X.-E., & Zhu, S.-N. (2012). Haloperidol prophylaxis decreases delirium incidence in elderly patients after noncardiac surgery: A randomized controlled trial*. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0b013e3182376e4f

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.