Introduction Bipolar disorder is an often disabling mental illness with a lifetime prevalence of 1%–2%, a high risk of recurrence of manic and depressive episodes, a lifelong elevated risk of suicide and a substantial heritability. The course of illness is frequently characterised by progressive shortening of interepisode intervals with each recurrence and increasing cognitive dysfunction in a subset of individuals with this condition. Clinically, diagnostic boundaries between bipolar disorder and other psychiatric disorders such as unipolar depression are unclear although pharmacological and psychological treatment strategies differ substantially. Patients with bipolar disorder are often misdiagnosed and the mean delay between onset and diagnosis is 5–10 years. Although the risk of relapse of depression and mania is high it is for most patients impossible to predict and consequently prevent upcoming episodes in an individual tailored way. The identification of objective biomarkers can both inform bipolar disorder diagnosis and provide biological targets for the development of new and personalised treatments. Accurate diagnosis of bipolar disorder in its early stages could help prevent the long-term detrimental effects of the illness. The present Bipolar Illness Onset study aims to identify (1) a composite blood-based biomarker, (2) a composite electronic smartphone-based biomarker and (3) a neurocognitive and neuroimaging-based signature for bipolar disorder. Methods and analysis The study will include 300 patients with newly diagnosed/first-episode bipolar disorder, 200 of their healthy siblings or offspring and 100 healthy individuals without a family history of affective disorder. All participants will be followed longitudinally with repeated blood samples and other biological tissues, self-monitored and automatically generated smartphone data, neuropsychological tests and a subset of the cohort with neuroimaging during a 5 to 10-year study period. Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by the Local Ethical Committee (H-7-2014-007) and the data agency, Capital Region of Copenhagen (RHP-2015-023), and the findings will be widely disseminated at international conferences and meetings including conferences for the International Society for Bipolar Disorders and the World Federation of Societies for Biological Psychiatry and in scientific peer-reviewed papers. Trial registration number NCT02888262.

Objectives: To investigate whether the conclusion of a recent systematic review and network meta-analysis (Ciprianiet al) that antidepressants are more efficacious than placebo for adult depression was supported by the evidence.Design: Reanalysis of a systematic review, with meta-analyses.Data sources: 522 trials (116 477 participants) as reported in the systematic review by Ciprianiet aland clinical study reports for 19 of these trials.Analysis: We used the Cochrane Handbook’s risk of bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to evaluate the risk of bias and the certainty of evidence, respectively. The impact of several study characteristics and publication status was estimated using pairwise subgroup meta-analyses.Results: Several methodological limitations in the evidence base of antidepressants were either unrecognised or underestimated in the systematic review by Ciprianiet al. The effect size for antidepressants versus placebo on investigator-rated depression symptom scales was higher in trials with a ‘placebo run-in’ study design compared with trials without a placebo run-in design (p=0.05). The effect size of antidepressants was higher in published trials compared with unpublished trials (p<0.0001). The outcome data reported by Ciprianiet aldiffered from the clinical study reports in 12 (63%) of 19 trials. The certainty of the evidence for the placebo-controlled comparisons should be very low according to GRADE due to a high risk of bias, indirectness of the evidence and publication bias. The mean difference between antidepressants and placebo on the 17-item Hamilton depression rating scale (range 0–52 points) was 1.97 points (95% CI 1.74 to 2.21).Conclusions: The evidence does not support definitive conclusions regarding the benefits of antidepressants for depression in adults. It is unclear whether antidepressants are more efficacious than placebo.