Cited by 309Fatty Acid Research and HealthBipolar Disorder and TreatmentTreatment of Major Depression

Efficacy of ethyl-eicosapentaenoic acid in bipolar depression: Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study

Open access
Frangou, Sophia, Lewis, Michael, McCrone, Paul·2006·British Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: Epidemiological and clinical studies suggest that increased intake of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) alleviates unipolar depression. Aims: To examine the efficacy of EPA in treating depression in bipolar disorder. Method: In a 12-week, double-blind study individuals with bipolar depression were randomly assigned to adjunctive treatment with placebo (n=26) or with 1g/day (n=24) or 2 g/day (n=25) of ethyl-EPA. Primary efficacy was assessed by the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD), with changes in the Young Mania Rating Scale and Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI) as secondary outcome measures. Results: There was no apparent benefit of 2g over 1g ethyl-EPA daily. Significant improvement was noted with ethyl-EPA treatment compared with placebo in the HRSD (P=0.04) and the CGI (P=0.004) scores. Both doses were well tolerated. Conclusions: Adjunctive ethyl-EPA is an effective and well-tolerated intervention in bipolar depression.

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 · 10.1192/bjp.188.1.46

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In patients with bipolar depression, ethyl eicosapentaenoic acid (1 g or 2 g/day) for 3 months showed significant improvements compared to placebo.

    “A double-blind study of patients with bipolar depression taking 1 g or 2 g of ethyl eicosapentaenoic a day for a period of 3 months has shown significant improvements compare to placebo (Frangou et al. 2006).”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Frangou, S., Lewis, M., & McCrone, P.
Affiliations
King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Frangou, Sophia
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2006-01
Volume
188
Issue
1
Pages
46-50
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W2162066663
Cited by
309
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 17
FWCI
19.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Fatty Acid Research and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
Keywords
eicosapentaenoic acid, bipolar depression, omega-3 fatty acids, adjunctive therapy, omega-3 supplementation, depression severity, mania, tolerability
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Bipolar Disorder, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Antipsychotic Agents, Eicosapentaenoic Acid, Treatment Outcome

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