Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 304

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Lithium Augmentation in Treatment-Resistant Depression: Meta-Analysis of Placebo-Controlled Studies

Bauer, Michael, Döpfmer, Susanne·1999·Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology

Abstract

The addition of lithium to the treatment regimens of previously nonresponding depressed patients has been repeatedly investigated in controlled studies. The authors undertook this meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of lithium augmentation of conventional antidepressants. An attempt was made to identify all placebo-controlled trials of lithium augmentation in refractory depression. Only double-blind studies that involved participants who had been treated with lithium or placebo addition after not responding to conventional antidepressants were to be included in the meta-analysis. Further inclusion criteria were the use of accepted diagnostic criteria for depression and the use of response criteria based on the acceptable measurement of depression as an outcome variable. Studies were located by a search of the MEDLINE database, a search in the Cochrane Library, and an intensive search by hand of reviews on lithium augmentation. Nine of 11 placebo-controlled, double-blind studies were included in this meta-analysis. Aggregating three studies with a total of 110 patients that used a minimum lithium dose of 800 mg/day, or a dose sufficient to reach lithium serum levels of > or = 0.5 mEq/L, and a minimum treatment duration of 2 weeks, the authors found that the pooled odds ratio of response during lithium augmentation compared with the response during placebo treatment was 3.31 (95% confidence interval, 1.46-7.53). The corresponding relative response rate was 2.14 (95% confidence interval, 1.23-3.70), the absolute improvement in response rate was 27% (95% confidence interval, 9.8%-44.2%), and the number of patients needed to be treated to obtain one more responder was 3.7. Inclusion of six more studies that fulfilled inclusion criteria but which treated subjects with additional lithium for less than 2 weeks or with a lower lithium dose (total, 234 patients) resulted in even higher estimates. Lithium augmentation seems to be the treatment strategy in refractory depression that has been investigated most frequently in placebo-controlled, double-blind studies. The authors conclude from this meta-analysis that with respect to efficacy, lithium augmentation is the first-choice treatment procedure for depressed patients who fail to respond to antidepressant monotherapy.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00004714-199910000-00006

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 304

Metadata

Authors
Bauer, M., & Döpfmer, S.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology
Published
1999-10
Volume
19
Issue
5
Pages
427-434
ISSN
0271-0749 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1973534109
Cited by
304
References
2
FWCI
1.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.