Cited by 250Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Benzodiazepines: Risks and Benefits. A Reconsideration

Open access
Baldwin, David S, Aitchison, Katherine, Bateson, Alan, Curran, H Valerie, Davies, Simon, Leonard, Brian, Nutt, David J, Stephens, David N +1 more·2013·Journal of Psychopharmacology

Abstract

Over the last decade there have been further developments in our knowledge of the risks and benefits of benzodiazepines, and of the risks and benefits of alternatives to benzodiazepines. Representatives drawn from the Psychopharmacology Special Interest Group of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the British Association for Psychopharmacology together examined these developments, and have provided this joint statement with recommendations for clinical practice. The working group was mindful of widespread concerns about benzodiazepines and related anxiolytic and hypnotic drugs. The group believes that whenever benzodiazepines are prescribed, the potential for dependence or other harmful effects must be considered. However, the group also believes that the risks of dependence associated with long-term use should be balanced against the benefits that in many cases follow from the short or intermittent use of benzodiazepines and the risk of the underlying conditions for which treatment is being provided.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0269881113503509

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Baldwin, D. S., Aitchison, K., Bateson, A., Curran, H. V., Davies, S., Leonard, B., Nutt, D. J., Stephens, D. N., & Wilson, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • Ross University School of Medicine (BB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CA)
  • Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway (IE)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • University of Sussex (GB)
Corresponding author
Baldwin, David S
Venue
Journal of Psychopharmacology
Published
2013-09-24
Volume
27
Issue
11
Pages
967-971
ISSN
  • 0269-8811 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7285
OpenAlex
W2116273170
Cited by
249
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 15 · 2012: 1
FWCI
22.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Bank (Australian Catholic University) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
benzodiazepines, anxiolytics, hypnotics, benzodiazepine dependence, long-term benzodiazepine use, benefits and risks, clinical guidelines, anxiety disorders, insomnia
MeSH terms
Benzodiazepines, Humans, Hypnotics and Sedatives, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Risk Assessment

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