4.5 Article

Recurrent unipolar mania: A comparative, cross-sectional study

期刊

COMPREHENSIVE PSYCHIATRY
卷 65, 期 -, 页码 136-140

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2015.11.008

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: A significant number of patients experience recurrent episodes of mania without depressive episodes. Evidence from the available literature suggests that these patients differ from typical bipolar or manic depressive patients, but results have been inconsistent. The current study aims to add to this literature by comparing the demographic, clinical and risk factor profiles of patients with recurrent mania with and without depression. Methods: 66 patients with a diagnosis of bipolar I disorder were divided into unipolar mania (recurrent mania alone, MA) and bipolar (both mania and depression, MD) sub-groups. Comorbid diagnoses were assessed using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), and genetic and environmental risk factors were explored using the Diagnostic Interview for Genetic Studies (DIGS), Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ), and an additional questionnaire designed for the purpose of the study. Differences between the MA and MD groups in terms of demographic variables, clinical profile, comorbidities and antecedent risk factors were explored. Results: Patients with both mania and depression had higher frequencies of lifetime suicide attempts, antidepressant treatment, and catatonic symptoms. There was some evidence of an association between overcrowding in childhood and the presence of depressive episodes. No other differences in demographic, clinical or risk factor variables could be found between the two groups. Discussion: Our results are consistent with the view that unipolar mania is not a distinctive disorder, or even a distinctive subtype of bipolar disorder. However, this conclusion is provisional as it is based only on clinical and demographic data. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据