Valproate in acute mania: is our practice evidence based?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This audit was conducted on acute psychiatric in-patient wards with the aim of establishing if valproate prescribing in acute mania followed evidence-based guidelines with particular emphasis on formulations used and whether accelerated valproate dosing was employed. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Case notes from 43 (42 percent male) patients admitted with mania and subsequently discharged on valproate were reviewed. Valproate formulation, weight measurement (necessary for dose-calculation in accelerated dosing), initial valproate dose and increments, serum valproate monitoring and other prescribed psychotropic agents were noted. FINDINGS: Most (95 percent) patients received sodium valproate (epilim chrono/generic), the remaining received valproate semi-sodium (depakote). All but one patient received antipsychotic medication in combination. Weight was recorded in only four (9 percent) patients. The mean valproate daily dose after the first week was 1,027mg (sd = 408). It took 29 (sd = 42) days to reach the maximum daily dose (1,426 mg sd = 467) from valproate initiation. Serum levels were monitored in 34 (79 percent) cases, but the mean period between valproate initiation to the first serum level test was 38 (sd = 47) days. A significant positive correlation was found between days taken to reach maximum dose and hospital stay (Spearman's rho = 0.41, n = 43, p = 0.006, two-tailed). PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Accelerated valproate dosing was not common practice, which may have resulted in suboptimal efficacy, probably leading to combination treatment. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This study highlights the need for adequate initial dosing and dose increments when treating manic patients and suggests current practice is not evidence-based. Local prescribing policy and national guidelines' influence on practice are discussed.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".