SynthesisRevista brasileira de psiquiatria (Sao Paulo, Brazil : 1999)
Assessment of the diagnostic performance of two new tools versus routine screening instruments for bipolar disorder: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Revista brasileira de psiquiatria (Sao Paulo, Brazil : 1999). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychometric Properties of the Turkish Version of the Rapid Mood Screener for Bipolar Disorder (RMS-T): A Validity and Reliability Study.Bipolar disorders · 2026Article
- A preliminary cross-sectional study of bipolarity and primary pharmacotherapy in long-term stable patients with major depressive disorder.International journal of bipolar disorders · 2026Article
- Article
- Critical Overview of Screening Tools for Detecting Bipolar Disorders.Actas espanolas de psiquiatria · 2025Review
- Protocol for a cluster-randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effectiveness of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for depression, implemented in Vietnamese Buddhist pagoda.BMC psychology · 2025Article
- Heritability, phenotypic, and genetic correlations across dimensional and categorical models of bipolar disorder in a family sample.Journal of affective disorders · 2025Article
- An Initial Scoping Review of Dysregulation of Mood, Energy, and Social Rhythms Syndrome (DYMERS) Regarding Burnout in Healthcare Professionals During COVID-19.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe present meta-analysis was conducted to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the bipolarity index (BI) and Rapid Mode Screener (RMS) as compared with the Bipolar Spectrum Diagnostic Scale (BSDS), the Hypomania Checklist (HCL-32), and the Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ) in people with bipolar disorder (BD).
methodsWe systematically searched five databases using standard search terms, and relevant articles published between May 1990 and November 30, 2021 were collected and reviewed.
resultsNinety-three original studies were included (n=62,291). At the recommended cutoffs for the BI, HCL-32, BSDS, MDQ, and RMS, the pooled sensitivities were 0.82, 0.75, 0.71, 0.71, and 0.78, respectively, while the corresponding pooled specificities were 0.73, 0.63, 0.73, 0.77, and 0.72, respectively. However, there was evidence that the accuracy of the BI was superior to that of the other tests, with a relative diagnostic odds ratio (RDOR) of 1.22 (0.98-1.52, p < 0.0001). The RMS was significantly more accurate than the other tests, with an RDOR (95%CI) of 0.79 (0.67-0.92, p < 0.0001) for the detection of BD type I (BD-I). However, there was evidence that the accuracy of the MDQ was superior to that of the other tests, with an RDOR of 1.93 (0.89-2.79, p = 0.0019), for the detection of BD type II (BD-II).
conclusionThe psychometric properties of two new instruments, the BI and RMS, in people with BD were consistent with considerably higher diagnostic accuracy than the HCL-32, BSDS, and MDQ. However, a positive screening should be confirmed by a clinical diagnostic evaluation for BD.
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.