Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 559

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Comparison of Lithium and T 3 Augmentation Following Two Failed Medication Treatments for Depression: A STAR*D Report

Nierenberg, Andrew A., Fava, Maurizio, Trivedi, Madhukar H., Wisniewski, Stephen R., Thase, Michael E., McGrath, Patrick J., Alpert, Jonathan E., Warden, Diane, Luther, James F., Niederehe, George, Lebowitz, Barry, Shores-Wilson, Kathy, Rush, A. John, STAR*D Study Team·2006·American Journal of Psychiatry
DOI 10.1176/ajp.2006.163.9.1519
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: More than 40% of patients with major depressive disorder do not achieve remission even after two optimally delivered trials of antidepressant medications. This study compared the effectiveness of lithium versus triiodothyronine (T(3)) augmentation as a third-step treatment for patients with major depressive disorder. METHOD: A total of 142 adult outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder who had not achieved remission or who were intolerant to an initial prospective treatment with citalopram and a second switch or augmentation trial were randomly assigned to augmentation with lithium (up to 900 mg/day; N=69) or with T(3) (up to 50 mug/day; N=73) for up to 14 weeks. The primary outcome measure was whether participants achieved remission, which was defined as a score < or =7 on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. RESULTS: After a mean of 9.6 weeks (SD=5.2) of treatment, remission rates were 15.9% with lithium augmentation and 24.7% with T(3) augmentation, although the difference between treatments was not statistically significant. Lithium was more frequently associated with side effects (p=0.045), and more participants in the lithium group left treatment because of side effects (23.2% versus 9.6%; p=0.027). CONCLUSIONS: Remission rates with lithium and T(3) augmentation for participants who experienced unsatisfactory results with two prior medication treatments were modest and did not differ significantly. The lower side effect burden and ease of use of T(3) augmentation suggest that it has slight advantages over lithium augmentation for depressed patients who have experienced several failed medication trials.

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 · 10.1176/ajp.2006.163.9.1519

Cites

13 of 13 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

Show all 13 references

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Depression Guidelines Panel, 1993, Md, US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service
  2. 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2005.00676.x · DOI
  3. 10.1192/bjp.138.3.252 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Bschor T, 2003, Pharmacopsychiatry, 36, S230, 10.1055/s-2003-45135 · DOI
  5. 10.1176/appi.ajp.157.9.1429 · DOI
  6. 10.1097/00004714-200208000-00008 · DOI
  7. 10.1176/ajp.114.9.841 · DOI
  8. 10.1176/ajp.126.4.457 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Howland RH, 1993, J Clin Psychiatry, 54, 47
  10. 10.2190/6FK8-DBGL-MWR1-MV58 · DOI
  11. 10.1192/bjp.163.5.574 · DOI
  12. 10.1017/S1461145700001875 · DOI
  13. 10.4088/JCP.v66n0812 · DOI
  14. 10.1001/archpsyc.1996.01830090090013 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1210/jc.2004-1147 · DOI
  16. 10.1176/appi.ajp.161.11.2060 · DOI
  17. 10.1097/00004714-200302000-00013 · DOI
  18. 10.1001/archpsyc.1993.01820170065008 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1176/ajp.2006.163.7.1161 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1016/S0193-953X(02)00107-7 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1016/S0197-2456(03)00112-0 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1016/S0006-3223(01)01223-9 · DOI
  23. Trivedi MH, 2002, Wisniewski SR
  24. Trivedi MH, 2006, DeVeaugh-Geiss J
  25. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.08.022 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1097/00131746-200603000-00002 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1191/1740774504cn035oa · DOI
  28. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1968.tb02103.x · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1016/0165-1781(92)90005-N · DOI · Paper page
  30. 10.1053/comp.2001.23126 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1016/j.jad.2005.03.005 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.2165/00019053-199304050-00006 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Endicott J, 1993, Psychopharmacol Bull, 29, 321
  34. 10.1176/ps.48.5.611 · DOI
  35. Kobak KA, 1999, MD Comput, 16, 64

Cited by

See all 559

Metadata

Authors
Nierenberg, A. A., Fava, M., Trivedi, M. H., Wisniewski, S. R., Thase, M. E., McGrath, P. J., Alpert, J. E., Warden, D., Luther, J. F., Niederehe, G., Lebowitz, B., Shores-Wilson, K., Rush, A. J., & STAR*D Study Team
Venue
American Journal of Psychiatry
Publisher
American Psychiatric Association Publishing
Published
2006-09
Volume
163
Issue
9
Pages
1519-1530
ISSN
  • 0002-953X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-7228
DOI
10.1176/ajp.2006.163.9.1519
OpenAlex
W2170273380
Cited by
559
References
13
FWCI
20.00
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Comparison of Lithium and T 3 Augmentation Following Two Failed Medication Treatments for Depression: A STAR*D Report. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1176/ajp.2006.163.9.1519
The paper
Nierenberg, A. A., Fava, M., Trivedi, M. H., Wisniewski, S. R., Thase, M. E., McGrath, P. J., Alpert, J. E., Warden, D., Luther, J. F., Niederehe, G., Lebowitz, B., Shores-Wilson, K., Rush, A. J., & STAR*D Study Team. (2006). A Comparison of Lithium and T 3 Augmentation Following Two Failed Medication Treatments for Depression: A STAR*D Report. American Journal of Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.2006.163.9.1519

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.