ReviewBipolar disorders2024
Mapping review of register-based cohort studies of bipolar disorder.
Review in Bipolar disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Mapping review of register-based cohort studies of bipolar disorder.Bipolar disorders · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesRegister-based cohorts allow us to better understand bipolar disorder over a life course. They are inclusive and their long-term data collection provides a longer scope than most clinical trials. This mapping review provides an overview of register-based cohort studies of bipolar disorder to inform researchers of the strengths and limitations to this body of research and identify gaps for future research.
methodsA systematic search was performed of Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases. Cohort studies were included if they focused on bipolar disorder and had a minimum of 1 year of longitudinal data. Studies needed to be from databases that monitor the whole state or national population. A descriptive analysis of the studies' populations and methodology provides an overview of this field of study and identifies evidence gaps.
resultsA hundred and forty-six studies were included. The majority were from databases in Taiwan (n = 63), Denmark (n = 38), Sweden (n = 23), and Finland (n = 11). Forty-eight studies focused on aetiological questions. Sixty prognostic studies identified cohorts with bipolar disorder and described the impact of the illness by considering comorbidity, prescribing patterns, social functioning, and mortality. Thirty-six treatment studies focused on the efficacy and adverse effects of pharmaceuticals and ECT. No studies focused on psychological treatments.
conclusionBipolar disorder research should include register-based cohorts with greater geopolitical and cultural diversity. Custodians of health registers should consider how non-pharmaceutical interventions such as psychotherapy are captured. Register-based cohorts investigating treatments of bipolar disorder should consider long-term social outcomes alongside the usual clinical outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.