↓ Skip to main content

How to Assess Drugs in the Treatment of Acute Bipolar Mania?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
How to Assess Drugs in the Treatment of Acute Bipolar Mania?
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2013.00004
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michel Bourin, Florence Thibaut

Abstract

Bipolar affective disorder is a serious mental disease associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Good-quality research available to guide treatment strategies remains insufficient, particularly with regard to manic or hypomanic episodes. A critical review of the various stages of mania might be helpful for pharmaceutical companies and investigators as a prerequisite for the clinical evaluation of potential antimanic properties of medications. The main difficulty is with a comparison between anticonvulsants, antipsychotics, and mood stabilizers such as lithium (with equal efficacy in the acute phase and the prevention of recurrent manic episodes). No consensus has been reached with regard to the treatment of bouts of acute mania in various parts of the world. Controlled clinical trials have, at last, provided irrefutable evidence of the activity of lithium, which has long been used alone, as well as that of divalproate or its derivatives and, to a lesser extent, carbamazepine. The new antipsychotic agents have more recently established their efficacy, especially aripiprazole, asenapine, quetiapine; olanzapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone (not sure where the paradox is). In Europe, haloperidol is still the reference substance used in clinical trials despite the fact that it is not officially indicated in the treatment of mania. In the USA, lithium, divalproate, or antipsychotics can be prescribed as first-line treatment. In Europe, lithium remains the first-line medication, whereas divalproate and atypical antipsychotic agents are used only as second-line therapy. Although both types of medication (antipsychotics, normothymic agents, and/or anticonvulsants) have proved to be clinically effective in the management of mania by reducing the mania scores overall, the same does not apply, however, to all symptoms of mania. Factorial approaches to mania have all shown that since there are several clinical forms of mania, several clusters of manic symptoms can be identified. Antipsychotic and normothymic agents and/or anticonvulsants do not appear to have the same effects on each of these identifiable clusters of symptoms, mainly psychotic features. We believe that it is vitally important for future clinical trials of mania treatment to focus on the treatment effect by adopting a factorial approach to characterization of the episode using an appropriate methodological structure. These questions highlight the uncertainty shrouding the very structure of manic episodes, namely that these are predominantly of a thymic or psychotic nature. The Europeans undoubtedly consider mania to be more of a thymic episode and prefer lithium as the first-line treatment, whereas the Americans believe that psychotic symptoms dominate and widely prescribe antipsychotic agents. However, from the standpoint of clinical trials currently available, even though antipsychotic agents are certainly effective in reducing the scores on the mania scales, it is not clear whether they can be considered purely as antimania treatments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 17%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Student > Master 4 7%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 16 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 31%
Psychology 6 11%
Neuroscience 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 18 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 March 2013.
All research outputs
#14,098,018
of 22,694,633 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#4,522
of 15,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,706
of 280,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#57
of 167 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,694,633 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,898 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
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 280,671 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 167 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.