ArticleCureus2026
Evaluation of Baseline Investigations for First-Contact Patients Receiving Psychotropic Treatment at a Tertiary Facility in South-West Nigeria: A Two-Year Clinical Audit.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Baseline investigations are recommended before initiating psychotropic medications to identify pre-existing medical conditions and reduce treatment-related adverse effects. This audit assessed compliance with recommended baseline investigations among first-contact patients receiving psychotropic treatment at a tertiary hospital in South-West Nigeria. Materials and methods A retrospective clinical audit was conducted using electronic medical records (EMRs) of first-contact patients managed between January 2024 and December 2025. Audit standards were derived from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) recommendations. Compliance was categorized as high (≥75%), moderate (50%-74%), or low (<50%). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, independent-samples t-tests, and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results Of 345 first-contact patients reviewed, 262 (75.9%) received at least one psychotropic medication and were included in the audit. Substance use disorders (61, 23.28%) and depressive episodes (60, 22.90%) were the most common diagnoses. Compliance with weight/body mass index (BMI) assessment, vital signs, and movement disorder screening was 100%. Compliance with laboratory and cardiac investigations was substantially lower: electrolytes/urea/creatinine (E/U/Cr) (25.2%), full blood count (FBC) (22.5%), fasting glucose/glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (19.6%), electrocardiography (11.4%), liver function tests (LFTs) (8.8%), and fasting lipid profile (FLP) (7.1%). No patient completed baseline prolactin testing. Overall, 180 patients (68.7%) had low compliance. Inpatients demonstrated significantly higher compliance than outpatients (55.5% versus 34.8%; p < 0.001). Conclusions Compliance with recommended baseline investigations was suboptimal, particularly for laboratory and electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring. Local monitoring protocols, improved access to investigations, and regular re-audit may improve adherence to recommended standards.
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.