Variability and efficacy in treatment effects on manic symptoms with lithium, anticonvulsants, and antipsychotics in acute bipolar mania: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Acute mania is a psychiatric emergency requiring rapid management. However, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have shown considerable individual differences in treatment effects on manic symptoms with antimanic drugs. Methods: We searched the MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify RCTs without language restrictions from inception to April 19, 2022. We included double-blind RCTs of oral antimanic monotherapy versus placebo in adult patients. The primary outcome was variability in improvement of manic symptoms (assessed using the coefficient of variation ratio [CVR]). The secondary outcomes were overall improvement of manic symptoms and acceptability (i.e., discontinuation for any reason). The pooled effects of outcomes were calculated by random-effects meta-analyses using restricted maximum likelihood methods. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB) Assessment Tool. This study was registered with OSF (DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/G4JNY). Findings: : 0·83; 0·79-0·89; 0%) and olanzapine (0·63; 0·49-0·80; 35%) were associated with better acceptability relative to placebo. Among the 39 RCTs, none had a high ROB. Interpretation: We demonstrated that eight antimanic drugs were associated with lower variability and better efficacy than placebo, suggesting that these antimanic drugs were associated with more homogenous and predictable improvements of manic symptoms in patients with acute mania. Funding: The study was supported by from the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST-110-2314-B-016-035, MOST-111-2314-B-016-054), Medical Affairs Bureau (MND-MAB-D-111102), and Tri-service General Hospital (TSGH-E-111229).
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".