ArticleHuman psychopharmacology2008
Comparison of mania patients suitable for treatment trials versus clinical treatment.
Article in Human psychopharmacology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The nature of depression and the biomedical model: ten questions in search of an answer.Translational psychiatry · 2026Review
- Generalizability of findings from four clinical cohort studies and a general population study to patients with bipolar I disorder in outpatient treatment in the Netherlands.International journal of bipolar disorders · 2025Article
- Exclusion criteria and generalizability in bipolar disorder treatment trials.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2018Review
- Article
- From Randomized Controlled Trials of Antidepressant Drugs to the Meta-Analytic Synthesis of Evidence: Methodological Aspects Lead to Discrepant Findings.Current neuropharmacology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
It remains uncertain whether bipolar disorder (BPD) patients in randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are sufficiently representative of clinically encountered patients as to guide clinical-therapeutic practice. We complied inclusion/exclusion criteria by frequency from reports of 21 RCTs for mania, and applied them in a pilot study of patients hospitalized for DSM-IV BPD manic/mixed states to compare characteristics and clinical responses of patients who did versus did not meet exclusion criteria. From 27 initially identified inclusion/exclusion criteria ranked by citation frequency, we derived six inclusion, and 10 non-redundant-exclusion factors. Of 67 consecutive patients meeting inclusion criteria, 15 (22.4%) potential "research subjects" met all 10 exclusion criteria. The remaining 52 "clinical patients" differed markedly on exclusion criteria, including more psychiatric co-morbidity, substance abuse, involuntary hospitalization, and suicide attempts or violence, but were otherwise similar. In both groups responses to clinically determined inpatient treatments were similar, including improvement in mania ratings. Based on applying reported inclusion/exclusion criteria for RCTs to a pilot sample of hospitalized-manic patients, those likely to be included in modern RCTs were similar to patients who would be excluded, most notably in short-term antimanic-treatment responses. The findings encourage further comparisons of subjects included/excluded from RCTs to test potential clinical generalizability of research findings. The pilot study is limited in numbers and exposure times with which to test for the minor differences between "research subjects" and "clinical patients."
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.