Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34227095›Full record

SynthesisActa psychiatrica Scandinavica2021

Lithium concentration and recurrence risk during maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder: Multicenter cohort and meta-analysis.

Chih-Wei Hsu, Andre F Carvalho, Shang-Ying Tsai, Liang-Jen Wang, Ping-Tao Tseng, Pao-Yen Lin, Yu-Kang Tu, Eduard Vieta, Marco Solmi, Chi-Fa Hung and 1 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Acta psychiatrica Scandinavica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. A one-compartment model provides benchmark Lithium dose prediction.Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

11 authors.

Chih-Wei HsuDepartment of Psychiatry, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-8650-4060
Andre F CarvalhoIMPACT (Innovation in Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Treatment) Strategic Research Centre, School of Medicine, Barwon Health, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2500-5671
Shang-Ying TsaiDepartment of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0001-5662-0055
Liang-Jen WangDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-5320-1151
Ping-Tao TsengProspect Clinic for Otorhinolaryngology & Neurology, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0001-5761-7800
Pao-Yen LinDepartment of Psychiatry, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-1394-4567
Yu-Kang TuInstitute of Epidemiology & Preventive Medicine, College of Public Health, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-2461-474X
Eduard VietaBipolar and Depressive Disorders Unit, Hospital Clinic, IDIBAPS, CIBERSAM, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0548-0053
Marco SolmiNeurosciences Department, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4877-7233
Chi-Fa HungDepartment of Psychiatry, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Hung-Yu KaoDepartment of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-8890-8544

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare differences in efficacy during maintenance treatment for bipolar disorder (BD) according to lithium serum levels. A multicenter retrospective cohort study and a dose-response meta-analysis were conducted.

methodsThe cohort study was conducted in Taiwan from 2001 to 2019 to identify patients with euthymic BD according to different serum levels (<0.4, 0.4-0.8, and 0.8-1.2 mmol/L). We adopted adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for time to the recurrence of mood episodes having the <0.4 mmol/L group as the reference group. Moreover, we systematically searched for related articles in major databases before January 31, 2021 (PROSPERO: CRD42021235812). We used random-effects modeling to estimate the dose-response relationships between lithium serum levels and recurrence of mood episodes, which were depicted as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs.

resultsA total of 1406 participants (cohort: 466; meta-analysis: 940) were included. In the cohort study, the 0.4-0.8 mmol/L group was associated with a significantly lower risk of recurrences (aHR: 0.75), while the 0.8-1.2 mmol/L group had a lower risk without statistical significance (aHR: 0.77). The dose-response meta-analysis showed that with the increase in lithium serum levels, the risk decreased (linear model OR: 0.85, for every 0.1 mmol/L increase; non-linear model OR: 1.00 at 0.0 mmol/L, 0.42 at 0.4 mmol/L, and 0.27 at 0.8 mmol/L).

conclusionAlthough confounding by indication cannot be excluded, the combined results suggest a significant preventative effect on the recurrence of major affective episodes among those with serum levels of 0.4-0.8 mmol/L.

Indexed as

Bipolar DisorderLithiumAntimanic AgentsCohort StudiesHumansRecurrenceRetrospective StudiesRiskAntimanic AgentsLithiumbipolar disorderdose-response meta-analysislithiummaintenance treatmentserum level

Identifiers

PMID34227095
PMCPMC8519019

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.