Limited Evidence for the Effectiveness of P.R.N. Medications Among Psychiatric Inpatients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of medications on a p.r.n. basis on psychiatric inpatient wards is common and widespread but without clear evidence of effectiveness. While individual studies have explored the use of p.r.n. medications in patients receiving scheduled psychotropic medications, no systematic review of the effectiveness of this use of p.r.n. medications has been done. A MEDLINE search was performed of all articles published in English between 1966 and November 2008. Studies were included only if they involved psychiatric patients and if they quantitatively explored the effectiveness of p.r.n. medications. Ten retrospective studies were identified that met inclusion criteria. Among the studies involving adult inpatients, estimates of effectiveness, primarily in the management of agitation, were consistently moderately high, averaging approximately 75%. These studies mainly involved use of antipsychotics and benzodiazepines. Lower estimates of about 30% were obtained in studies involving non-adult inpatients who had few psychotic disorders and among whom there was only minimal use of p.r.n. benzodiazepines. The meaning of effectiveness was often unclear across these retrospective studies. It also appears that important outcome measures, such as duration of hospitalization, may not be affected. Administration of p.r.n. medication was also associated with a greater risk of adverse events. Future studies concerning use of p.r.n. medications in psychiatric patients should examine objective ratings of agitation, medication effects, and adverse events.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it