ArticleInternational journal of bipolar disorders2025
Generalizability of findings from four clinical cohort studies and a general population study to patients with bipolar I disorder in outpatient treatment in the Netherlands.
Article in International journal of bipolar disorders, 2025. 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.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLittle attention has been paid to the generalizability of cohort studies in bipolar disorder (BD) to patient with BD in everyday clinical practice.
methodsA sample of patients with bipolar I disorder (BD-I) treated at a Dutch outpatient clinic for BD were compared with Dutch participants with BD-I of four clinical cohort studies, and participants with BD-I in a general population study in the Netherlands, on sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.
resultsOn many variables participants from the outpatient sample matched with those of the included studies. However, compared with participants of several of the clinical cohort studies, these outpatients were significantly younger, had an earlier age of onset of mood symptoms, and had a shorter duration of illness. Compared with participants in the general population study, outpatients had significant higher levels of education and less often lived together or were married. One cohort study reported much lower comorbidity rates of alcohol use disorders, drug use disorders, and anxiety disorders than in the outpatient sample. In contrast, comorbidity rates were higher in the population study. LIMITATIONS: Due to methodological differences between studies, comparisons between several variables was limited, and for some variables data was lacking.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that many findings from cohort studies and general population study in BD-I are generalizable to everyday clinical practice, especially mood disorder outpatient centers. However, differences between samples indicate some selection and referral bias.
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.