↓ Skip to main content

Pharmacological treatment and staging in bipolar disorder: evidence from clinical practice

Overview of attention for article published in Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Pharmacological treatment and staging in bipolar disorder: evidence from clinical practice
Published in
Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, May 2015
DOI 10.1590/1516-4446-2014-1554
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pedro D. Goi, Joana Bücker, Mireia Vianna-Sulzbach, Adriane R. Rosa, Iria Grande, Ines Chendo, Leonardo A. Sodré, Marcia Kauer-Sant'Anna, Leonardo Silveira, Mauricio Kunz, Keila M. Ceresér, Clarissa S. Gama, Raffael Massuda

Abstract

Staging models for medical diseases are widely used to guide treatment and prognosis. Bipolar disorder (BD) is a chronic condition and it is among the most disabling disorders in medicine. The staging model proposed by Kapczinski in 2009 presents four progressive clinical stages of BD. Our aim was to evaluate pharmacological maintenance treatment across these stages in patients with BD. One hundred and twenty-nine subjects who met DSM-IV criteria for BD were recruited from the Bipolar Disorders Program at Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Brazil. All patients were in remission. The subjects were classified according to the staging model: 31 subjects were classified as stage I, 44 as stage II, 31 as stage III, and 23 as stage IV. Patterns of pharmacological treatment differed among the four stages (p = 0.001). Monotherapy was more frequent in stage I, and two-drug combinations in stage II. Patients at stages III and IV needed three or more medications or clozapine. Impairment in functional status (Functioning Assessment Short Test [FAST] scale scores) correlated positively with the number of medications prescribed. This study demonstrated differences in pharmacological treatment in patients with stable BD depending on disease stage. Treatment response can change with progression of BD. Clinical guidelines could consider the staging model to guide treatment effectiveness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 97 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 15%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 26 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 30%
Psychology 12 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 34 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 January 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria
#708
of 902 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,989
of 279,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 902 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,135 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.