MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effectiveness of mood stabilizers and antipsychotics in the maintenance phase of bipolar disorder: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

2007· review· en· W1978709168 on OpenAlexaff
L. A. Smith, Victoria Cornelius, Adrian Warnock, Angus J. Bell, Allan H. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueBipolar Disorders · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSanofi
KeywordsLamotrigineOlanzapineTolerabilityMood stabilizerBipolar disorderManiaHazard ratioRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineMedicineLithium (medication)PsychiatryMoodPlaceboTreatment of bipolar disorderBipolar I disorderAdverse effectConfidence intervalSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Epilepsy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Bipolar disorder (BD) is a leading cause of disability. Systematic reviews of randomized trials for the treatment of the maintenance phase of BD are lacking. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and tolerability of mood stabilizers and antipsychotics in the maintenance treatment of BD. METHODS: We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials of licensed medications for the treatment of any phase of BD. We included randomized controlled trials comparing a medication to placebo or another medication. Comprehensive searches of electronic databases were conducted to March 2005. Outcomes investigated were relapse due to mania, depression or any mood episode, and withdrawal due to any reason or due to an adverse event. Data were combined through meta-analysis. RESULTS: Fourteen studies (n = 2,526) met the inclusion criteria. Lithium, lamotrigine, olanzapine and valproate semisodium each demonstrated evidence to support long-term use. Compared with placebo, all medications were more effective at preventing relapse because of any mood episode. Hazard ratios (HR) were 0.68 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.53-0.86] for lithium, 0.68 (95% CI = 0.55-0.85) for lamotrigine, and 0.82 (95% CI = 0.57-1.20) for valproate semisodium; for olanzapine, the risk ratio (RR) was 0.58 (95% CI = 0.49-0.69). Lithium and olanzapine significantly reduced manic relapses (HR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.35-0.79 and RR = 0.37; 95% CI = 0.24-0.57, respectively). Lamotrigine and valproate semisodium significantly reduced depressive relapses (HR = 0.65; 95% CI = 0.46-0.91 and RR = 0.40; 95% CI = 0.20-0.82, respectively). Lithium significantly reduced manic relapses compared with lamotrigine (HR = 0.56; 95% CI = 0.34-0.92) and olanzapine significantly reduced manic relapses compared with lithium (RR = 1.69; 95% CI = 1.12-2.55). Withdrawal due to an adverse event was approximately twice as likely with lithium compared with valproate semisodium (RR = 1.81; 95% CI = 1.08-3.03) and lamotrigine (RR = 2.20; 95% CI = 1.31-3.70). There were few data for carbamazepine or medications given as adjunct therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Mood stabilizers have differing profiles of efficacy and tolerability, suggesting complementary roles in long-term maintenance treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.015
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.341 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations187
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBipolar DisordersSame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207