↓ Skip to main content

Bipolar disorder prevalence: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature

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

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
84 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
257 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
Bipolar disorder prevalence: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature
Published in
Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, May 2015
DOI 10.1590/1516-4446-2012-1693
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adauto S. Clemente, Breno S. Diniz, Rodrigo Nicolato, Flavio P. Kapczinski, Jair C. Soares, Josélia O. Firmo, Érico Castro-Costa

Abstract

Bipolar disorder (BD) is common in clinical psychiatric practice, and several studies have estimated its prevalence to range from 0.5 to 5% in community-based samples. However, no systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of BD type 1 and type 2 has been published in the literature. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of the lifetime and 1-year prevalence of BD type 1 and type 2 and assessed whether the prevalence of BD changed according to the diagnostic criteria adopted (DSM-III, DSM-III-R vs. DSM-IV). We searched MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and the reference lists of identified studies. The analyses included 25 population- or community-based studies and 276,221 participants. The pooled lifetime prevalence of BD type 1 was 1.06% (95% confidence interval [95%CI] 0.81-1.31) and that of BD type 2 was 1.57% (95%CI 1.15-1.99). The pooled 1-year prevalence was 0.71% (95%CI 0.56-0.86) for BD type 1 and 0.50% (95%CI 0.35-0.64) for BD type 2. Subgroup analysis showed a significantly higher lifetime prevalence of BD type 1 according to the DSM-IV criteria compared to the DSM-III and DSM-IIIR criteria (p < 0.001). This meta-analysis confirms that estimates of BD type 1 and type 2 prevalence are low in the general population. The increase in prevalence from DSM-III and DSM-III-R to DSM-IV may reflect different factors, such as minor changes in diagnostic operationalization, use of different assessment instruments, or even a genuine increase in the prevalence of BD.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 257 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 256 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 52 20%
Student > Master 38 15%
Student > Postgraduate 27 11%
Researcher 24 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 8%
Other 36 14%
Unknown 59 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 82 32%
Psychology 38 15%
Neuroscience 15 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 5%
Other 28 11%
Unknown 66 26%