Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32034292›Full record

ReviewMolecular psychiatry2020

The origin of our modern concept of mania in texts from 1780 to 1900.

Kenneth S Kendler

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular psychiatry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

1 author.

Kenneth S KendlerVirginia Institute of Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, and Department of Psychiatry, Medical College of Virginia/Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA. kenneth.kendler@vcuhealth.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The development of the modern concept of mania is explored by a review and analysis of 28 psychiatric texts in English, French, and German published in Western Europe and North America from 1780 to 1900. From 1780 until the 1820s, mania was consistently viewed as a disorder of reasoning/judgment manifest by total insanity and/or the state of undifferentiated fury. For the next 30 years, the consensus shifted, and mania was understood to be largely a disorder of elevated mood. This concurrence of opinion broke down around 1860. For the remaining years of the 19th century, the mood-based model of mania competed for dominance with the view that mania arose primarily from accelerated mental processes and to a lesser degree that mania resulted from psychomotor excitation. While most authors advocated for one of these three positions, a number suggested that two or all three of these processes were central to the etiology of mania. Faculty psychology played an important role in these discussions, providing a framework within which to place the mental disturbance considered foundational to the manic syndrome. When the viewpoints shifted away from mania as a primary disorder of judgment, new approaches were needed to understand the emergence of grandiose delusions. Utilizing the concept of understandability, a number of authors suggested that manic delusions could arise directly from a euphoric mood. The history of mania shares some important similarities and differences with the history of melancholia during this same period. Both histories suggest that our major psychiatric categories evolved through a complex process involving both observations of symptoms, signs and course, and conceptual developments and a priori theories.

Indexed as

Bipolar DisorderPsychotic DisordersEuropeHumansManiaMood Disorders

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.