ReviewPsychiatry investigation2016
Review of Cohort Studies for Mood Disorders.
Review in Psychiatry investigation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bipolar symptoms, somatic burden, and functioning in older-age bipolar disorder: Analyses from the Global Aging & Geriatric Experiments in Bipolar Disorder Database project.Bipolar disorders · 2022Article
- Clinical Validation of the Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-6, and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale-5: Results from the Clinical Research Center for Depression Study.Psychiatry investigation · 2017Article
- Design and Methods of the Mood Disorder Cohort Research Consortium (MDCRC) Study.Psychiatry investigation · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 11 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper aimed to review currently available cohort studies of subjects with mood disorders such as major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar disorder (BD). Using the PubMed and KoreaMed databases, we reviewed eight major cohort studies. Most studies recruited participants with MDD and BD separately, so direct comparison of factors associated with diagnostic changes was difficult. Regular and frequent follow-up evaluations utilizing objective mood ratings and standardized evaluation methods in a naturalistic fashion are necessary to determine detailed clinical courses of mood disorders. Further, biological samples should also be collected to incorporate clinical findings in the development of new diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. An innovative cohort study that can serve as a platform for translational research for treatment and prevention of mood disorders is critical in determining clinical, psychosocial, neurobiological and genetic factors associated with long-term courses and consequences of mood disorders in Korean patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.