Thus, results from this study suggest that a less intensive intervention (three sessions of psychoeducation) may be sufficient for many adolescents with bipolar disorder, especially if delivered in conjunction with guideline-concurrent pharmacotherapy. It also suggests, however, that there may be those for whom a more intensive treatment is indicated—perhaps, as articulated by the authors, with additional strategies to help adolescents better address peer and romantic relationships. In earlier studies, family-focused therapy showed greater benefit for families with high levels of expressed emotion (16, 17), and therefore this may be a subgroup for whom family-focused therapy is indicated. A stepped-care approach to treating bipolar disorder in adolescents might permit efficient allocation of higher-intensity resources in a clinically meaningful way. Of course, evaluating these hypotheses would require further testing. Had the Miklowitz et al. study confirmed earlier research findings, there would be less impetus to further refine and optimize treatments for youths with bipolar disorder. Although this may not have been the expected outcome, publication of a trial that refutes earlier work may help us improve treatments for youths with bipolar disorder precisely because it does not allow clinicians and researchers to be complacent. In the end, the true measure of a study’s success rests with its ability to stimulate new ideas and questions. By this metric, the investigators have achieved much.