Lithium Prescribing and Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in Bipolar Disorder: A Survey of Current Practices and Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this survey study was to assess specific aspects of lithium therapy for bipolar disorder, including psychiatrists' prescribing practices, understanding of therapeutic drug monitoring, and concerns and perspectives regarding lithium therapy. METHODS: A 14-item survey was electronically distributed to 225 staff psychiatrists at 8 academic hospitals. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 85 psychiatrists (38% of the 225 psychiatrists to whom the survey was distributed), with between 81 and 85 respondents completing the different items. When asked about the agents with which they initiated therapy, 49 (61%) reported initiating therapy with an atypical antipsychotic and 34 (42%) reported starting with lithium therapy in 50% or more of patients newly diagnosed with bipolar disorder. When prescribing lithium, most of the respondents (n=68, 82%) reported that they used once daily dosing, and 67 respondents (79%) indicated that they ordered lithium blood levels 12 hours postdose. When interpreting lithium levels, 46 respondents (55%) reported "always" changing a clinically stable patient's lithium dose when the level was above the therapeutic range, compared with 4 (5%) who reported always changing the dose when the level was below the therapeutic range. When asked about their concerns regarding lithium therapy, more than half of the respondents reported that they were especially concerned about toxicity, organ dysfunction, and other adverse effects, as well as therapeutic drug monitoring. CONCLUSION: Shifts in prescribing practices, inconsistent interpretation of lithium levels, and concerns about safety and therapeutic drug monitoring highlight the need for evidence-informed guidelines reflective of current practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".