Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41087646›Full record

ReviewCurrent psychiatry reports2025

Lithium: Old Drug, New tricks?

Rebecca Strawbridge, Christiana Boules, Richard Morriss, Allan H Young

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current psychiatry reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Rebecca StrawbridgeDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK. Becci.strawbridge@kcl.ac.uk.
Christiana BoulesSouth London & Maudsley NHS Trust, London, UK.
Richard MorrissFaculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Allan H YoungDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewLithium is considered to have substantial benefits and harms, which constitutes a complex clinical challenge. This article aims to cover five putative strategies to maximise the benefits of lithium therapy while concurrently minimising its harms. RECENT

findingsThe strategies range in terms of their evidence base. Some are supported by long-standing evidence, namely the management of some common and/or severe adverse effects. For others, we are seeing emerging research focus, particularly in the use of lithium in 'sub-therapeutic' doses. In considering gradual titration and variable dosing, as well as innovation to enhance the monitoring of lithium, there is limited evidence which is reviewed. We conclude that optimising lithium therapy is not straightforward and clearly individual patient characteristics must be thoroughly prioritised. However, a general rule for optimising can be to maintain lithium at its lowest therapeutic level for an individual patient, with close monitoring of levels and adverse effects as well as careful titration where clinically indicated.

Indexed as

Antimanic AgentsBipolar DisorderLithium CompoundsHumansAntimanic AgentsLithium CompoundsAdverse effectsDoseEffectivenessLithiumMonitoringSafetyTitration

Identifiers

PMID41087646
PMCPMC12592243

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.