Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23121772›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2012

Commentary on a recent review of lithium toxicity: what are its implications for clinical practice?

Bruno Müller-Oerlinghausen, Michael Bauer, Paul Grof

Open access · goldAbstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Concerns on the growing use of lithium: the pros and cons.Iranian Red Crescent medical journal · 2013
    Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Bruno Müller-OerlinghausenDrug Commission of the German Medical Association, Berlin, Germany. bruno.mueller-oerlinghausen@web.de
Michael Bauer
Paul Grof
German Medical Association · DEUniversity Hospital Carl Gustav Carus · DEUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A recent paper by McKnight et al. in The Lancet has provided the first formal meta-analysis of the more common adverse reactions to lithium. The authors analyzed 385 studies and focused mainly on the harmful effects of lithium on the kidney, the thyroid and parathyroid glands, body weight, skin and congenital malformations. Their contribution is important and welcome, but as a guide for practice, it needs to be complemented by other relevant observations and individual patient-focused perspectives.The findings from that meta-analysis somewhat underestimate the renal side-effects, and distort to some degree or exclude other adverse effects. The glomerular filtration rate is reduced but not more than 0 to 5 ml/min/year of observation; this may not fully reflect the present state of knowledge. A quarter of patients in the study had abnormalities of the thyroid and/or parathyroid gland, and lithium was found to increase body weight significantly less than did olanzapine. Unfortunately, the authors did not consider the observations from spontaneous reporting systems, which may have changed the picture.We feel that some specific limitations of the study were related to the inclusion of patients regardless of adequacy of treatment, quality of monitoring, drug combinations, age and sex, and stabilization response.

Indexed as

Antipsychotic AgentsHumansLithiumMood DisordersAntipsychotic AgentsLithium

Identifiers

PMID23121772
PMCPMC3520772
OpenAlexW2107960589

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.