Skip to main content
. 2021 Oct 8;2021(10):CD011611. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011611.pub3

Summary of findings 4. Cytidine compared to placebo for adults with depression in bipolar disorder.

Cytidine compared to placebo for adults with depression in bipolar disorder
Patient or population: adults (aged 18 years+) with depression in bipolar disorder
Setting: any setting (outpatient, inpatient, or both)
Intervention: cytidine
Comparison: placebo
Outcomes Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) Relative effect
(95% CI) № of participants
(studies) Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE) Comments
Risk with placebo Risk with cytidine
Efficacy: number of participants who respond to treatment ‐ at 3 months Study population OR 1.13
(0.30 to 4.24) 35
(1 RCT) ⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW1,2  
471 per 1000 501 per 1000
(211 to 790)
Efficacy: number of participants who achieve remission  
Depression rating scale score  
Acceptability: total dropouts Study population OR 0.94
(0.12 to 7.52) 35
(1 RCT) ⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW1,2  
118 per 1000 111 per 1000
(16 to 501)
Acceptability: dropouts due to adverse effects  
*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: Confidence interval; HDRS: Hamilton depression rating scale; OR: Odds ratio.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidenceHigh certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.
Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

1 Downgraded by one point because no studies described the outcome assessment as masked.
2 Downgraded by two points because of the very small sample size and the wide confidence interval.