Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42758600›Full record

SynthesisThe European journal of general practice2026

Distinguishing bipolar disorder from unipolar depression in general practice: A systematic review.

Docteur Scheherazade Niktabe, Catherine Massoubre

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The European journal of general practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Docteur Scheherazade NiktabeGeneral Practitioner, Lyon, France.ORCID 0000-0003-4175-4637
Catherine MassoubreDepartment of Psychiatric Emergency, Université Jean Monnet, Saint Étienne, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveBipolar disorder affects approximately 1% of the population, although some studies report prevalence rates of up to 6%. Distinguishing it from unipolar depression remains challenging, with diagnostic delays often exceeding ten years. This systematic review aims to identify clinical and historical features of depressive episodes that support the earlier detection of bipolar disorder in general practice.

methodsA systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. The PubMed database was searched using MeSH terms. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the PRISMA checklist.

resultsOf the 525 articles identified, 36 met the inclusion criteria. Early age at onset, recurrent episodes, family history of bipolar disorder, cyclothymic temperament, suicide attempts, postpartum depression, psychotic features and mixed episodes emerged as the most consistently associated indicators of bipolar disorder. Other clinical characteristics showed more heterogeneous or limited associations. Although individual features lack sufficient predictive value when considered in isolation, their combined presence may enhance clinical suspicion and facilitate earlier identification of bipolar disorder in primary care settings.

conclusionThis review identified a combination of clinical and historical features of depressive episodes that help distinguish between bipolar disorder and unipolar depression in general practice. Identifying these features through a structured clinical interview, as a complement to existing screening tools such as the Mood Disorder Questionnaire, may help reduce diagnostic delays and improve outcomes.

Indexed as

Bipolar DisorderDepressive DisorderGeneral PracticeAge of OnsetDiagnosis, DifferentialHumansBipolar disorderdiagnostic errorsgeneral practicemajor depressive disorderrisk factors

Identifiers

PMID42758600
PMCPMC13591959

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.