SynthesisThe European journal of general practice2026
Distinguishing bipolar disorder from unipolar depression in general practice: A systematic review.
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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.