Talk:Haloperidol

End-stage cancer palliative care

Although touched upon, the article doesn't really cover the use of this drug during the last week of palliative care for terminal cancer patients. With the reduction in use of haloperidol in psychiatric medicine, this is probably the most common use today. --Ef80 (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Most commonly used typical antipsychotic

The statement that "it is the most commonly used typical antipsychotic" would seem to be important enough that it should appear in the lede rather than at the end of the third paragraph, so I have moved it up. Piperh (talk) 08:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Haloperidol/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I rate this article a 6/10. It has too many headings and is not well organized. Its content is good, but the structure needs work.

Last edited at 17:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 17:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Neurotoxicity

User:Doc James: A while back I added this study to both the lede and the body of the article with the claim "haloperidol is neurotoxic". You removed the claim from the lede and changed the claim in the body to "haloperidol may be neurotoxic". The article finds finds clear evidence of neurotoxicity. The statement "further research is needed to confirm these findings" should not be taken as an indicator that the evidence is equivocal, as such statements are made indiscriminately in scientific literature and are uncorrellated with strength evidence. And even if the evidence were equivocal-- My god! Is this not worthy of the lede? -Wikiman2718 (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Source says "A review of the literature suggests that haloperidol exerts measurable neurotoxic effects at all doses via many molecular mechanisms that lead to neuronal death." That means may, not definite... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: The abstract is downplaying the risk. The article makes it clear that holoperidol and other first generation antipsychotics are neurotoxic. If you can't read the article, one of the authors wrote this editorial in which they make their views quite clear. And again, this is huge. Why did you take it out of the lede? This study found that IV haloperidol administration measurably decreases brain volume within two hours of administration. The authors commented that the brain returns to normal size soon after and concluded that haloperidol does not kill brain cells. However, studies on prolonged antipsychotic use (like the one in discussion) do find permanent decrease in brain volume, sometimes by up to ten percent. They forcibly inject kids with these drugs at the border, by the way. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Because one study isn't enough to say anything for certain. Broad expert consensus may be stated with more certain terms, but for now 'suggests' would likely be more appropriate, without a place in the lede.

Asserting that the abstract is "downplaying the risk" without further qualification suggests that the article's new paragraph on neurotoxicity has been shaped by your primary personal opinion, which isn't what Wikipedia is for.

I'd agree with @Doc James on this. The additional information on neurotoxicity is interesting, but is certainly not a proportionate representation of the body of literature on this topic to date. AlexVojProc (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

References