ReviewDialogues in clinical neuroscience2025
Antipsychotic off-label use in the 21st century: An enduring public health concern.
Review in Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quetiapine modestly improves sleep and breathing but impairs next-day performance in people with obstructive sleep apnea and difficulty maintaining sleep: a randomized controlled trial.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2026Trial
- "Chill packs" self-administered olanzapine as psychiatric harm reduction for methamphetamine-induced psychosis: a narrative review of the existing evidence base.Harm reduction journal · 2026Review
- Neurological Adverse Effects of Antipsychotic Medication in Children and Young People.Paediatric drugs · 2026Review
- Antipsychotic treatment patterns and cardiometabolic medicine use: current real-world evidence.Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences · 2026Article
- Potentially inappropriate medications in older outpatients with depression: a cross-sectional study comparing the Beers criteria and the Chinese criteria.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Understanding the Use of Atypical Antipsychotic Treatment for Major Depressive Disorder: An International Cross-Sectional Survey of Health Care Providers.Journal of clinical psychopharmacologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Soon after the introduction of second-generation antipsychotics, antipsychotic off-label use (OLU) progressively became a common prescribing practice. This evolving practice should be regularly monitored considering the growing number of persons exposed to the adverse effects of antipsychotics. The aim of the present review was to synthesise the literature published over the last 15 years on antipsychotic OLU for mental health symptoms. Observational studies confirm the persisting high rate of antipsychotic OLU prescription in two out of three youths and 30-60% of adults using antipsychotics. Increasing rates of low-dose quetiapine prescriptions for anxiety or sleep symptoms are paradigmatic of the current public health concern regarding antipsychotic OLU. Such prescriptions receive impetus from industry-funded marketing strategies and prescribers' feeling of innocuousness, with a resulting underestimation of the risk of adverse drug reactions (ADR). However, antipsychotic OLU should be neither trivialised nor demonised since it may be the only therapeutic option in persons with resistant psychiatric disorders or serious ADR with labelled drugs. To reduce the populational impact of antipsychotic OLU, it is necessary to better control the influence of the pharmaceutical industry regarding newly marketed drugs and to better inform prescribers and users about the risks associated with OLU prescribing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.