ArticleResearch square2024
Beyond traditional metrics: A novel method for measuring mood instability in bipolar disorder.
Article in Research square, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Clinical care for bipolar disorder (BD) has a narrow focus on prevention and remission of episodes with pre/post treatment reductions in symptom severity as the 'gold standard' for outcomes in clinical trials and measurement-based care strategies. The study aim was to provide a novel method for measuring outcomes in BD that has clinical utility and can stratify individuals with BD based on mood instability. Methods: Participants were 603 with a BD (n=385), other or non-affective disorder (n=71), or no psychiatric history (n=147) enrolled in an intensive longitudinal cohort for at least 10 years that collects patient reported outcomes measures (PROMs) assessing depression, (hypo)mania, anxiety, and functioning every two months. Mood instability was calculated as the within-person variance of PROMs and stratified into low, moderate, and high thresholds, respectively. Outcomes: Individuals with BD had significantly higher mood instability index's for depression, (hypo)mania, and anxiety compared to psychiatric comparisons (moderate effects, p's<.001) and healthy controls (large effects, p's<.001). A significantly greater proportion of individuals with BD fell into the moderate (depression: 52·8%; anxiety: 51·4%; (hypo)mania: 48·3%) and high instability thresholds (depression: 11·5%; anxiety: 9·1%; (hypo)mania: 10·8%) compared to psychiatric comparisons (moderate: 25·5 - 26·6%; high: 0% - 4·7%) and healthy controls (moderate: 2·9% - 17·1%; high: 0% - 1·4%). Being in the high or moderate instability threshold predicted worse health functioning (p's < .00, small to large effects). Interpretation: Mood instability, as measured in commonly used PROMs, characterized the course of illness over time, correlated with functional outcomes, and significantly differentiated those with BD from healthy controls and psychiatric comparisons. Results suggest a paradigm shift in monitoring outcomes in BD, by measuring mood instability as a primary outcome index.
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.