ArticleBipolar disorders2026
Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Comparison of Commonly Used Screening Tools for Bipolar Disorders.
Article in Bipolar disorders, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMisdiagnosis is common in bipolar disorder (BD). Currently used screening tools are brief and cost-effective, but there is a lack of understanding of their reliability over time, as well as whether responses are influenced by demographic or clinical factors.
aimsTo examine the cross-sectional and longitudinal reliability and validity of two commonly used screening tools, as well as their associations with current mood states and other participant characteristics.
methodsA total of 331 adult patients with a diagnosis of BD completed the Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ) and the Hypomania Symptom Checklist-32 (HCL-32) as well as measures of mood online at baseline and three months later.
resultsThe MDQ was found to have low reliability with poor internal consistency (α = 0.531; α = 0.647 at respective timepoints) and test-retest reliability (r
conclusionsThe HCL-32 appeared more reliable than the MDQ, although all participants needed to exceed an MDQ threshold at baseline to participate in the study, which may have biased our results.
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.