The Impact of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder on Pharmacologic Intervention Outcomes for Adults With Bipolar Disorder: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) co-occurring in people with bipolar disorder (BD) is high. People with BD and PTSD may experience different outcomes and quality of life after pharmacologic treatment than those with BD alone. This review systematically explores the impact of PTSD on pharmacologic treatment outcomes for adults with BD. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search up to November 25, 2021, using MEDLINE Complete, Embase, American Psychological Association PsycInfo, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized and nonrandomized studies of pharmacologic interventions for adults with BD that assessed for comorbid PTSD. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to assess the risk of bias. RESULTS: The search identified 5093 articles, and we reviewed 62 full-text articles. Two articles met inclusion criteria (N = 438). One article was an observational study, and the other was a randomized comparative effectiveness trial. The observational study examined lithium response rates and found higher response rates in BD alone compared with BD plus PTSD over 4 years. The randomized trial reported more severe symptoms in the BD plus PTSD group than in those with BD alone following 6 months of quetiapine treatment. There was no significant difference in the lithium treatment group at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Comorbid PTSD may affect quetiapine and lithium treatment response in those with BD. Because of the high risk of bias and low quality of evidence, however, these results are preliminary. Specific studies exploring comorbid BD and PTSD are required to inform pharmacotherapy selection and guidelines appropriately. (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews ID: CRD42020182540).
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 | 0.007 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".