Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38919568›Full record

ReviewIndian journal of psychiatry2024

Research on clinical aspects of bipolar disorder: A review of Indian studies.

Sharon Narula, Arghya Pal, M S Reddy, Sudhir L Mahajan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Indian journal of psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Sharon NarulaDepartment of Psychiatry, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Educations and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Arghya PalDepartment of Psychiatry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Kalyani, West Bengal, India.
M S ReddyConsultant Psychiatrist, ASHA Hospital, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Sudhir L MahajanDepartment of Psychiatry, Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Bipolar disorder is one of the severe mental disorders that are associated with significant morbidity of the patients. Despite advancements in our understanding about the disorder, it remains a challenging proposition to treat bipolar disorder, largely since the prophylactic treatment of the disorder requires assessment of complex clinical algorithms. The revisions of the classificatory systems have also changed the conceptualization of the disorder. In this background, we conducted a review of the Indian studies conducted on the clinical aspects of bipolar disorder. Methods: A narrative review was conducted with focus on the literature published from India. The databases searched included PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar, and articles published over the last 15 years by Indian authors were included for this review. Results: In our review, we could access a substantial volume of research published from India. We could identify studies that catered to most of the relevant themes in bipolar disorder including epidemiology, etiology, comorbidities, stigma, disability, clinical course, cognitive profile, pathways to care, and recovery. Conclusion: The research trajectory was in line with the research conducted elsewhere in the world. However, certain dissimilarities in terms of focus could also be observed. The possible reason behind this deviation could be the difference in clinical need and unique challenges faced in the management and rehabilitation of patients in bipolar disorder in Indian scenario.

Indexed as

Bipolar disorderclinical researchetiopathogenesisIndianeurobiology

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.