Efficacy and tolerability of lithium for the treatment of acute mania in children with bipolar disorder: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of lithium for the treatment of acute mania in children and adolescent diagnosed with bipolar disorder. METHODS: A systematic literature search up to August 2017 was conducted for clinical trials that included lithium in males and females up to 18 years of age with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder and experiencing a manic or mixed episode according to standardized diagnostic criteria. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017055675). RESULTS: Four independent studies described in seven manuscripts met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 176 patients were treated with lithium either as a monotherapy or adjunct to risperidone. Efficacy results suggest that lithium may be superior to placebo (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.88 to 0.04), comparable to sodium divalproex (SMD -0.07, 95% CI: -0.31 to 0.18), but significantly less effective than risperidone for treating protracted manic/mixed episodes and comorbid attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in prepubertal children (SMD 0.85, 95% CI: 0.54 to 1.15). Lithium was not associated with serious adverse events, and was generally well tolerated with common side effects similar to those reported in adults. CONCLUSIONS: Limited data suggests that lithium may be an effective and tolerable treatment for some forms of paediatric mania. However, lithium is clearly inferior in efficacy to risperidone in prepubertal patients diagnosed with protracted manic/mixed episodes and comorbid ADHD. There is a lack of data concerning the efficacy and tolerability of lithium as an acute treatment for classical mania in adolescents and important clinical issues remain unaddressed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".