ReviewPCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences2022
A systematic review and network meta-analysis of antimanic drugs for the treatment of acute mania used in Japan.
Review in PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A systematic review and network meta-analysis of antimanic drugs for the treatment of acute mania used in Japan.PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review aimed to clarify whether antimanic agents used in Japan are superior to placebo for the treatment of acute mania, based on reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in Japan and other East Asian countries. A literature search was conducted using the MEDLINE, PubMed, and Ichushi databases from their dates of inception to July 31, 2021, for studies written in English or Japanese with a primary diagnosis of bipolar I disorder, comparing any of the following active drugs to treat acute mania in adults: aripiprazole, carbamazepine, chlorpromazine, haloperidol, lithium, olanzapine, sultopride, timiperone, and zotepine. A random-effects network meta-analysis was performed within a frequentist framework. The quality of each included study was evaluated using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. The outcomes adopted were the response rate for efficacy and dropout rate for tolerability during 3 weeks from baseline. Eleven RCTs, totaling 1148 participants, were reviewed. The pooled odds ratio (OR) (±95% confidence interval [CI]) was calculated. Timiperone (OR = 4.53, CI 1.09-18.80), sultopride (OR = 3.76, CI 1.08-13.05), and aripiprazole (OR = 1.99, CI 1.22-3.24) were significantly more effective than placebo. Olanzapine (OR = 0.51, CI 0.29-0.90) was significantly superior in acceptability to placebo. The results showed no significant differences from placebo for carbamazepine, chlorpromazine, haloperidol, lithium, and olanzapine. These results suggest that noninferiority trials alone cannot always confirm the antimanic drug efficacy and that direct placebo-controlled trials are necessary to verify the antimanic efficacy of the drugs.
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.