Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25028535›Full record

SynthesisDrug design, development and therapy2014

Quetiapine for acute bipolar depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Sirijit Suttajit, Manit Srisurapanont, Narong Maneeton, Benchalak Maneeton

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Drug design, development and therapy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 249 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Death by fecaloma.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sirijit SuttajitDepartment of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Manit SrisurapanontDepartment of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Narong ManeetonDepartment of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Benchalak ManeetonDepartment of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Chiang Mai University · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrecise estimated risks and benefits of quetiapine for acute bipolar depression are needed for clinical practice.

objectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and the tolerability of quetiapine, either as monotherapy or combination therapy, for acute bipolar depression.

methodsWe included all randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) comparing quetiapine with other treatments, including placebo, in patients with acute bipolar depression (bipolar I or II disorder, major depressive episode). Published and unpublished RCTs were identified using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Web of Knowledge, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the EU Clinical Trials Register database, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The primary outcome was the change scores of depression rating scales.

resultsEleven RCTs (n=3,488) were included. Two of them were conducted in children and adolescents. The change in depression scores was significantly greater in the quetiapine group compared with the placebo group (mean difference, [MD] =-4.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] -5.59 to -3.73). The significant difference was observed from week 1. Compared with placebo, quetiapine had higher incidence rates of extrapyramidal side effects, sedation, somnolence, dizziness, fatigue, constipation, dry mouth, increased appetite, and weight gain but lower risks of treatment-emergent mania and headache. Quetiapine treatment was associated with significant improvement of clinical global impression, quality of life, sleep quality, anxiety, and functioning.

conclusionQuetiapine monotherapy is effective for acute bipolar depression and the prevention of mania/hypomania switching. Its common adverse effects are extrapyramidal side effects, sedation, somnolence, dizziness, fatigue, constipation, dry mouth, increased appetite, and weight gain. The lower risk of headache in quetiapine-treated patients with acute bipolar depression should be further investigated. The evidence for the use of quetiapine combined with mood stabilizers in children and adolescents with acute bipolar depression is too small to support the clinical practice.

Indexed as

Acute DiseaseBipolar DisorderHumansQuetiapine FumarateRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicQuetiapine Fumarateantipsychoticdropoutefficacyremissionresponseside effects

Identifiers

PMID25028535
PMCPMC4077390
OpenAlexW2030345783

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.