The DOI matches its Crossref record; 175 of the 175 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessment and management of agitation in psychiatry: Expert consensus
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Psychomotor agitation is associated with different psychiatric conditions and represents an important issue in psychiatry. Current recommendations on agitation in psychiatry are not univocal. Actually, an improper assessment and management may result in unnecessary coercive or sedative treatments. A thorough and balanced review plus an expert consensus can guide assessment and treatment decisions. METHODS: An expert task force iteratively developed consensus using the Delphi method. Initial survey items were based on systematic review of the literature. Subsequent surveys included new, re-worded or re-rated items. RESULTS: Out of 2175 papers assessing psychomotor agitation, 124 were included in the review. Each component was assigned a level of evidence. Integrating the evidence and the experience of the task force members, a consensus was reached on 22 statements on this topic. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations on the assessment of agitation emphasise the importance of identifying any possible medical cause. For its management, experts agreed in considering verbal de-escalation and environmental modification techniques as first choice, considering physical restraint as a last resort strategy. Regarding pharmacological treatment, the "ideal" medication should calm without over-sedate. Generally, oral or inhaled formulations should be preferred over i.m. routes in mildly agitated patients. Intravenous treatments should be avoided.
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
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
American Psychiatric Association (2013) · doi:10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596 · Cited by 116,369
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6 · Cited by 88,282
PRISMA-P Group, Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 · Cited by 26,223
The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia.
Kay, S. R., Fiszbein, A., & Opler, L. A. (1987) · Schizophrenia Bulletin · doi:10.1093/schbul/13.2.261 · Cited by 21,378
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?
Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J. M., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4 · Cited by 17,582
Qualitative Research: Consensus methods for medical and health services research
Jones, J., & Hunter, D. (1995) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.311.7001.376 · Cited by 3,471
The Overt Aggression Scale for the objective rating of verbal and physical aggression
(1986) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/ajp.143.1.35 · Cited by 1,216
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition, Revised
Kobylski, T. P. (1988) · Psychosomatics · doi:10.1016/s0033-3182(88)72438-x · Cited by 1,054
Arvanitis, L. A., & Miller, B. G. (1997) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s0006-3223(97)00190-x · Cited by 803
Pacchiarotti, I., Bond, D. J., Baldessarini, R. J., Nolen, W. A., Grunze, H., Licht, R. W., Post, R. M., Berk, M., Goodwin, G. M., Sachs, G. S., et al. (2013) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.13020185 · Cited by 770
Self-citation
Cited by
Yatham, L. N., Kennedy, S. H., Parikh, S. V., Schaffer, A., Bond, D. J., Frey, B. N., Sharma, V., Goldstein, B. I., Rej, S., Beaulieu, S., et al. (2018) · Bipolar Disorders · doi:10.1111/bdi.12609 · Cited by 1,852
“medications, or when oral therapy cannot be safely or reliably administered, then IM formulations should be considered (125).”
BackgroundSelf-citationWeltens, I., Bak, M., Verhagen, S., Vandenberk, E., Domen, P., van Amelsvoort, T., & Drukker, M. (2021) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0258346 · Cited by 200
Grunze, H., Vieta, E., Goodwin, G. M., Bowden, C., Licht, R. W., Azorin, J.-M., Yatham, L., Mosolov, S., Möller, H.-J., Kasper, S., et al. (2018) · The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1080/15622975.2017.1384850 · Cited by 187
Self-citationRoppolo, L. P., Morris, D. W., Khan, F., Downs, R., Metzger, J., Carder, T., Wong, A. H., & Wilson, M. P. (2020) · JACEP Open · doi:10.1002/emp2.12138 · Cited by 130
Metadata
- Authors
- Garriga, M., Pacchiarotti, I., Kasper, S., Zeller, S. L., Allen, M. H., Vázquez, G., Baldaçara, L., San, L., McAllister-Williams, R. H., Fountoulakis, K. N., Courtet, P., Naber, D., Chan, E. W., Fagiolini, A., Möller, H. J., Grunze, H., Llorca, P. M., Jaffe, R. L., Yatham, L. N., Hidalgo-Mazzei, D., Passamar, M., Messer, T., Bernardo, M., & Vieta, E.
- Venue
- The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2016-02-17
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 86-128
- ISSN
- 1562-2975 (ISSN-L)
- 1814-1412
- OpenAlex
- W2295127278
- Cited by
- 309
- References
- 175
- FWCI
- 37.91
- 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: Assessment and management of agitation in psychiatry: Expert consensus. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3109/15622975.2015.1132007
- The paper
- Garriga, M., Pacchiarotti, I., Kasper, S., Zeller, S. L., Allen, M. H., Vázquez, G., Baldaçara, L., San, L., McAllister-Williams, R. H., Fountoulakis, K. N., Courtet, P., Naber, D., Chan, E. W., Fagiolini, A., Möller, H. J., Grunze, H., Llorca, P. M., Jaffe, R. L., Yatham, L. N., . . . Vieta, E. (2016). Assessment and management of agitation in psychiatry: Expert consensus. The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.3109/15622975.2015.1132007
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.
