The chronotherapeutic treatment of bipolar disorders: A systematic review and practice recommendations from the ISBD task force on chronotherapy and chronobiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To systematically review the literature on the efficacy and tolerability of the major chronotherapeutic treatments of bipolar disorders (BD)-bright light therapy (LT), dark therapy (DT), treatments utilizing sleep deprivation (SD), melatonergic agonists (MA), interpersonal social rhythm therapy (IPSRT), and cognitive behavioral therapy adapted for BD (CBTI-BP)-and propose treatment recommendations based on a synthesis of the evidence. METHODS: PRISMA-based systematic review of the literature. RESULTS: The acute antidepressant (AD) efficacy of LT was supported by several open-label studies, three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and one pseudorandomized controlled trial. SD showed rapid, acute AD response rates of 43.9%, 59.3%, and 59.4% in eight case series, 11 uncontrolled, studies, and one RCT, respectively. Adjunctive DT obtained significant, rapid anti-manic results in one RCT and one controlled study. The seven studies on MA yielded very limited data on acute antidepressant activity, conflicting evidence of both antimanic and maintenance efficacy, and support from two case series of improved sleep in both acute and euthymic states. IPSRT monotherapy for bipolar II depression had acute response rates of 41%, 67%, and 67.4% in two open studies and one RCT, respectively; as adjunctive therapy for bipolar depression in one RCT, and efficacy in reducing relapse in two RCTs. Among euthymic BD subjects with insomnia, a single RCT found CBTI-BP effective in delaying manic relapse and improving sleep. Chronotherapies were generally safe and well-tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The outcome literature on the adjunctive use of chronotherapeutic treatments for BP is variable, with evidence bases that differ in size, study quality, level of evidence, and non-standardized treatment protocols. Evidence-informed practice recommendations are offered.
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 | 0.061 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".