Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17253526›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2007

Interventions for helping people recognise early signs of recurrence in bipolar disorder.

R K Morriss, M A Faizal, A P Jones, P R Williamson, C Bolton, J P McCarthy

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

54 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 163 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Lithium: Old Drug, New tricks?Current psychiatry reports · 2025
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

R K MorrissUniversity of Nottingham, Psychiatry, A Floor, South Block, Nottingham, UK, NG7 2UH. richard.morriss@nottingham.ac.uk
M A Faizal
A P Jones
P R Williamson
C Bolton
J P McCarthy
Mersey Care NHS Trust · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GBRoyal Bolton Hospital · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecurrence rates for bipolar disorder are high despite effective treatments with mood stabiliser drugs. Self-help treatments and psychological treatments that teach patients to recognise and manage early warning symptoms and signs (EWS) of impending manic or depressive episodes are popular with patients. The main aim of such interventions is to intervene early and prevent bipolar episodes, thereby increasing the time to the next recurrence and preventing hospitalisation.

objectivesTo compare the effectiveness of an EWS intervention plus treatment as usual (TAU ) versus TAU (involving and not involving a psychological therapy) on time to manic, depressive and all bipolar episodes (the primary outcome), hospitalisation, functioning, depressive and manic symptoms. SEARCH STRATEGY: Relevant studies identified by searching Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Registers (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References - searched on 20/10/2005), supplemented with hand searching the journal Bipolar Disorders, searching the UK National Research Register, checking reference lists of included studies and contacting authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Participants were adults with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder based on standardised psychiatric criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently rated trials for inclusion. Data were extracted from included trials by reviewers using a data extraction sheet. Authors of all the included studies were contacted for any additional information required. Time to recurrence data was summarised as log hazard ratios, dichotomous data as relative risk and continuous data as weighted mean difference, using random effects models to calculate effect size only when there was heterogeneity in the data. MAIN

resultsEleven RCTs were identified, but only six provided primary outcome data. All six RCTs were of high quality. Time to first recurrence of any type (RE, hazards ratio 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.82), time to manic/hypomanic episode, time to depressive episode, and percentage of people hospitalised and functioning favoured the intervention group. Neither depressive nor hypomanic symptoms differed between intervention and control groups. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThis review shows a beneficial effect of EWS in time to recurrence, percentage of people hospitalised and functioning in people with bipolar disorder. However, the absence of data on the primary outcome measure in so many included studies is a source of concern and a potential source of bias. Mental health services should consider routinely providing EWS interventions to adults with bipolar disorder, as they appear to reduce hospitalisation and therefore may be cost-effective.

Indexed as

Bipolar DisorderHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSecondary Prevention

Identifiers

PMID17253526
PMCPMC6544804
OpenAlexW1940564071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.