Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26769120›Full record

SynthesisBMC psychiatry2016

Electronic self-monitoring of mood using IT platforms in adult patients with bipolar disorder: A systematic review of the validity and evidence.

Maria Faurholt-Jepsen, Klaus Munkholm, Mads Frost, Jakob E Bardram, Lars Vedel Kessing

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC psychiatry, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
15.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

54 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 176 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Maria Faurholt-JepsenPsychiatric Center Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen, DK- 2100, Denmark. maria@faurholt-jepsen.dk.
Klaus MunkholmPsychiatric Center Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen, DK- 2100, Denmark. klaus.munkholm@regionh.dk.
Mads FrostThe Pervasive Interaction Laboratory (PIT Lab), IT University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. madsf@itu.dk.
Jakob E BardramDTU Compute Copenhagen Center for Health Technology, DTU, Lymgby, Denmark. jakba@dtu.dk.
Lars Vedel KessingPsychiatric Center Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen, DK- 2100, Denmark. lars.vedel.kessing@regionh.dk.
Rigshospitalet · DKIT University of Copenhagen · DKTechnical University of Denmark · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVarious paper-based mood charting instruments are used in the monitoring of symptoms in bipolar disorder. During recent years an increasing number of electronic self-monitoring tools have been developed. The objectives of this systematic review were 1) to evaluate the validity of electronic self-monitoring tools as a method of evaluating mood compared to clinical rating scales for depression and mania and 2) to investigate the effect of electronic self-monitoring tools on clinically relevant outcomes in bipolar disorder.

methodsA systematic review of the scientific literature, reported according to the Preferred Reporting items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library were searched and supplemented by hand search of reference lists. Databases were searched for 1) studies on electronic self-monitoring tools in patients with bipolar disorder reporting on validity of electronically self-reported mood ratings compared to clinical rating scales for depression and mania and 2) randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating electronic mood self-monitoring tools in patients with bipolar disorder.

resultsA total of 13 published articles were included. Seven articles were RCTs and six were longitudinal studies. Electronic self-monitoring of mood was considered valid compared to clinical rating scales for depression in six out of six studies, and in two out of seven studies compared to clinical rating scales for mania. The included RCTs primarily investigated the effect of heterogeneous electronically delivered interventions; none of the RCTs investigated the sole effect of electronic mood self-monitoring tools. Methodological issues with risk of bias at different levels limited the evidence in the majority of studies.

conclusionsElectronic self-monitoring of mood in depression appears to be a valid measure of mood in contrast to self-monitoring of mood in mania. There are yet few studies on the effect of electronic self-monitoring of mood in bipolar disorder. The evidence of electronic self-monitoring is limited by methodological issues and by a lack of RCTs. Although the idea of electronic self-monitoring of mood seems appealing, studies using rigorous methodology investigating the beneficial as well as possible harmful effects of electronic self-monitoring are needed.

Indexed as

AffectSelf ReportBipolar DisorderHumansMobile ApplicationsPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID26769120
PMCPMC4714425
OpenAlexW2234209023

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.