ArticleBMC psychiatry2025
Investigation of the relationship between cognitive flexibility, theory of mind and creative thinking in patients with bipolar disorder.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to analyse the differences in creative thinking dispositions between patients with bipolar disorder (BD) and healthy controls (HCs) and to examine the potential role of cognitive flexibility (CF) and theory of mind (ToM) as mediators of this relationship.
methodsFifty patients diagnosed with BD in remission and fifty HCs participated in the study. The participants completed the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET), the Dokuz Eylul Theory of Mind Index (DEToMI) and the Marmara Creative Thinking Dispositions Scale (MCTDS).
resultsThere was no significant difference between the groups in terms of creative thinking dispositions, t(98)=-0.99, p =.323. However, patients performed worse in several areas, such as the number of perseverative errors (PEs) t(98) = 4.84, p <.001, number of completed categories (z=-4.38, p <.001), DEToMI total score t(98)=-3.51, p <.001, and RMET score t(98)=-2.77, p <.007, than HCs. In the patient group, correlations were found between innovation search and irony scores (r (48) = 0.44, p =.001) and between innovation search and the DEToMI total score (r [(48) = 0.44, p =.002). In the HC group, associations were found between PEs and innovation search, r (48)=-0.33, p =.019; PEs and inquisitive, r (48)=-0.29, p =.044; SOFB and inquisitive, r (48) = - 0.30, p =.034; doubt and irony, r (48) = 0.29, p =.043; and the RMET score and courage, r (48)=-0.31, p =.027. In the HC group, 44% of the MCTDS score was explained by the model variables at a statistically significant level. LIMITATIONS: Not all factors affecting creative thinking dispositions and cognitive functions were examined.
conclusionsThe relationship between creativity and BD varies depending on the research approach; however, consistent with the current literature, our study found no significant differences in creative thinking dispositions between the groups. While CF and ToM predicted creative thinking in healthy individuals, they do not predict these dispositions in BD patients. Therefore, focusing on other cognitive factors related to creativity in individuals with BD may help clarify this issue. Our study contributes to the limited literature by investigating the effects of CF and ToM on creative thinking dispositions in BD patients.
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.