ReviewInternational journal of bipolar disorders2026
Efficacy and safety of pharmacological and non-invasive brain stimulation for adolescent bipolar depression: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Review in International journal of bipolar disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This network meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and physical treatments for depressive episodes in adolescents with bipolar disorder (BD), incorporating evidence from six randomized controlled trials (RCTs), total N = 879. Due to the absence of shared comparators, pharmacological treatments and non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) were analyzed in separate evidence networks rather than being directly compared.Pharmacological treatments included lurasidone, olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (OFC), and quetiapine, while NIBS consisted of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS). P-scores probabilities showed lurasidone as the most effective for reducing depressive symptoms (CDRS-R SMD: -0.41, 95% CI: -0.62 to -0.19) and improving response rates (RR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.30-2.04). OFC had the highest remission rates (RR: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.03-1.89). Quetiapine demonstrated limited antidepressant efficacy (CDRS-R SMD: -0.12, 95% CI: -0.38-0.15) but significantly reduced treatment-emergent mania risk (RR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.05-0.97). In NIBS, tDCS outperformed both iTBS and placebo for reducing depressive (HAMD SMD: -2.56, 95% CI: -3.40 to -1.73) and anxiety symptoms (HAMA SMD: -3.21, 95% CI: -4.15 to -2.28). These results suggest that lurasidone and tDCS may be promising options for symptom management in adolescents with BD, while quetiapine may be considered for preventing manic switching. Further studies, including head-to-head trials, are needed to better understand the long-term effects and address gaps in suicide risk management and multimodal treatment strategies.
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.