Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 647

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Haloperidol Prophylaxis for Elderly Hip‐Surgery Patients at Risk for Delirium: A Randomized Placebo‐Controlled Study

Open access
Kalisvaart, Kees J., De Jonghe, Jos F. M., Bogaards, Marja J., Vreeswijk, Ralph, Egberts, Toine C. G., Burger, Bart J., Eikelenboom, Piet, Van Gool, Willem A.·2005·Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

Abstract

Objectives: To study the effectiveness of haloperidol prophylaxis on incidence, severity, and duration of postoperative delirium in elderly hip‐surgery patients at risk for delirium. Design: Randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial. Setting: Large medical school–affiliated general hospital in Alkmaar, the Netherlands. Participants: A total of 430 hip‐surgery patients aged 70 and older at risk for postoperative delirium. Intervention: Haloperidol 1.5 mg/d or placebo was started preoperatively and continued for up to 3 days postoperatively. Proactive geriatric consultation was provided for all randomized patients. Measurements: The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative delirium ( Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition , and Confusion Assessment Method criteria). Secondary outcomes were the severity of delirium (Delirium Rating Scale, revised version‐98 (DRS‐R‐98)), the duration of delirium, and the length of hospital stay. Results: The overall incidence of postoperative delirium was 15.8%. The percentage of patients with postoperative delirium in the haloperidol and placebo treatment condition was 15.1% and 16.5%, respectively (relative risk=0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.6–1.3); the mean highest DRS‐R‐98 score±standard deviation was 14.4±3.4 and 18.4±4.3, respectively (mean difference 4.0, 95% CI=2.0–5.8; P <.001); delirium duration was 5.4 versus 11.8 days, respectively (mean difference 6.4 days, 95% CI=4.0–8.0; P <.001); and the mean number of days in the hospital was 17.1±11.1 and 22.6±16.7, respectively (mean difference 5.5 days, 95% CI=1.4–2.3; P <.001). No haloperidol‐related side effects were noted. Conclusion: Low‐dose haloperidol prophylactic treatment demonstrated no efficacy in reducing the incidence of postoperative delirium. It did have a positive effect on the severity and duration of delirium. Moreover, haloperidol reduced the number of days patients stayed in the hospital, and 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 · 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53503.x

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 647

Metadata

Authors
Kalisvaart, K. J., De Jonghe, J. F. M., Bogaards, M. J., Vreeswijk, R., Egberts, T. C. G., Burger, B. J., Eikelenboom, P., & Van Gool, W. A.
Venue
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-09-21
Volume
53
Issue
10
Pages
1658-1666
ISSN
  • 0002-8614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5415
OpenAlex
W2169254853
Cited by
647
References
3
FWCI
18.21
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: Haloperidol Prophylaxis for Elderly Hip‐Surgery Patients at Risk for Delirium: A Randomized Placebo‐Controlled Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53503.x
The paper
Kalisvaart, K. J., De Jonghe, J. F. M., Bogaards, M. J., Vreeswijk, R., Egberts, T. C. G., Burger, B. J., Eikelenboom, P., & Van Gool, W. A. (2005). Haloperidol Prophylaxis for Elderly Hip‐Surgery Patients at Risk for Delirium: A Randomized Placebo‐Controlled Study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53503.x

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.