Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34915951›Full record

ArticleBJPsych open2021

Can we check serum lithium levels less often without compromising patient safety?

Adrian H Heald, David Holland, Michael Stedman, Mark Davies, Chris J Duff, Ceri Parfitt, Lewis Green, Jonathan Scargill, David Taylor, Anthony A Fryer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJPsych open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Lithium: Old Drug, New tricks?Current psychiatry reports · 2025
    Review
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

10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Adrian H HealdDepartment of Diabetes and Endocrinology, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK, and The School of Medicine and Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9537-4050
David HollandThe Benchmarking Partnership, Alsager, Cheshire, UK.
Michael StedmanRes Consortium, Andover, UK.
Mark DaviesRes Consortium, Andover, UK.
Chris J DuffSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK, and Department of Clinical Biochemistry, University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, UK.
Ceri ParfittDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, UK.
Lewis GreenSt. Helens & Knowsley Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Whiston Hospital, Prescot, UK.
Jonathan ScargillDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, The Royal Oldham Hospital, The Northern Care Alliance, Manchester, UK.
David TaylorInstitute of Psychiatry, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2557-1710
Anthony A FryerSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK, and Department of Clinical Biochemistry, University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, UK.
University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust · GBBenchmark (United Kingdom) · GBPsychiatry Research Trust · GBRoyal Oldham Hospital · GBSalford Royal NHS Foundation Trust · GBSt Helens and Knowsley Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLithium is viewed as the first-line long-term treatment for prevention of relapse in people with bipolar disorder.

aimsThis study examined factors associated with the likelihood of maintaining serum lithium levels within the recommended range and explored whether the monitoring interval could be extended in some cases.

methodWe included 46 555 lithium rest requests in 3371 individuals over 7 years from three UK centres. Using lithium results in four categories (<0.4 mmol/L; 0.40-0.79 mmol/L; 0.80-0.99 mmol/L; ≥1.0 mmol/L), we determined the proportion of instances where lithium results remained stable or switched category on subsequent testing, considering the effects of age, duration of lithium therapy and testing history.

resultsFor tests within the recommended range (0.40-0.99 mmol/L categories), 84.5% of subsequent tests remained within this range. Overall, 3 monthly testing was associated with 90% of lithium results remaining within range, compared with 85% at 6 monthly intervals. In cases where the lithium level in the previous 12 months was on target (0.40-0.79 mmol/L; British National Formulary/National Institute for Health and Care Excellence criteria), 90% remained within the target range at 6 months. Neither age nor duration of lithium therapy had any significant effect on lithium level stability. Levels within the 0.80-0.99 mmol/L category were linked to a higher probability of moving to the ≥1.0 mmol/L category (10%) compared with those in the 0.4-0.79 mmol/L group (2%), irrespective of testing frequency.

conclusionWe propose that for those who achieve 12 months of lithium tests within the 0.40-0.79 mmol/L range, the interval between tests could increase to 6 months, irrespective of age. Where lithium levels are 0.80-0.99 mmol/L, the test interval should remain at 3 months. This could reduce lithium test numbers by 15% and costs by ~$0.4 m p.a.

Indexed as

intervallevelLithiumsafetytesting

Identifiers

PMID34915951
PMCPMC8715256
OpenAlexW4200285322

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.