Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Polydipsia is the intake of more than three litres of fluids per day. Primary polydipsia occurs when excessive drinking cannot be explained by an identified medical condition, and is not secondary to polyuria. The prevalence of this problem in psychiatric inpatients has been estimated at between 6 and 17%. It can hinder standard care and be a highly disabling, even life-threatening condition. OBJECTIVES: To review the effect of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of psychosis-related polydipsia. SEARCH STRATEGY: The reviewers searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (January 2002) which is compiled by up-to-date methodical searches of BIOSIS, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Dissertation abstracts, EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, PSYNDEX, PsycINFO, RUSSMED and Sociofile and is supplemented with hand searching of relevant journals and numerous conference proceedings. References of all identified studies were also searched for further trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials involving people with a psychotic illness and secondary polydipsia, which evaluated drug treatments, and measured clinically meaningful outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Reviewers, working independently, inspected citations, ordered papers, and then re-inspected and quality assessed the studies. They also worked independently to extract data. For homogeneous dichotomous data, the relative risk (RR), 95% confidence interval (CI), and, where appropriate, the number needed to treat (NNT) and the number needed to harm (NNH), were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis. Reviewers assumed that people who left the study early or were lost to follow-up had no improvement. Weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated for continuous data. Data was excluded if loss to follow-up was greater than 50%. MAIN RESULTS: The reviewers identified two trials which fulfilled the inclusion criteria, (total n=17, duration 3-6 weeks). Few data were reported and, because of inappropriate use of crossover methodology, it could not all be used in this review. For the few chronically ill people in these trials, neither the 'active' tetracycline bacteriostatic agent, oral demeclocycline, nor the opiate antagonist naloxone, nor placebo, gave any suggestion of serious adverse effects for a period of up to six weeks. The two small studies did not report any useful data on measures of polydipsia, physical symptoms secondary to increased fluid intake, mental state, general functioning or economic outcomes. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The trials offer little to the clinician hoping to treat psychosis-related polydipsia with drugs, except that further evaluative studies need to be conducted in this area. Treatment of any sort for psychosis related polydipsia might only be informative within a well designed, conducted and reported randomised study. The two pioneering studies suggest that larger trials, though difficult, would not be impossible with adequate support and co-ordination.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".