ArticleNeuroscience applied2026
Digital tools for assessing bipolar disorder: A scoping review of the current landscape.
Article in Neuroscience applied, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This scoping review synthesizes current evidence on the use of digital tools to assess bipolar disorder across clinical, behavioral, physiological, and psychosocial domains. An electronic search of Ovid, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and OpenGrey, completed in March 2026, yielded 374 articles for full-text evaluation. Of which 214 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final review. Most studies were conducted in the Global North, particularly the United States, Denmark, the United Kingdom, and Germany. Participant samples varied widely, although cohorts were typically comprised of young adults and predominantly female, with implications for the contexts in which digital markers have been evaluated across illness stages and demographic groups, and for the extent to which these findings can be generalized. Across studies, mood, sleep, and activity were the most frequently assessed domains, whereas physiological signals, cognitive performance, and communication-based features were less frequently examined, highlighting several underdeveloped but clinically relevant areas. Common measurement approaches included self-report questionnaires and ecological momentary assessment, whilst passive sensing approaches, such as accelerometry, geolocation, device-use metrics, speech features, and actigraphy, captured continuous indicators of sleep-wake cycles, mobility, and activity rhythms. The present synthesis reveals a clear temporal shift: since 2015, the field has transitioned from primarily active, self-report study designs toward multimodal, sensor-based methodologies, driven by advances in smartphones, wearable technologies, and sophisticated data-processing pipelines. Overall, this review highlights substantial progress in digital monitoring for bipolar disorder, with emerging tools offering ecologically valid, continuous assessment of core symptom dimensions. These developments lay essential groundwork for multimodal digital biomarkers with potential applications in early detection, tailored intervention, improved patient outcomes, and longitudinal care.
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.