4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Screening for bipolar disorder in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: A pilot study

期刊

JOURNAL OF AFFECTIVE DISORDERS
卷 91, 期 2-3, 页码 205-209

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2006.01.011

关键词

polycystic ovary syndrome; bipolar disorder; mood disorders questionnaire; valproate

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [MH-01963] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Previous reports have attributed polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) to valproate treatment in women with bipolar disorder and with epilepsy. However, since high rates of mood disorders have been identified in women with PCOS, we sought to investigate the hypothesis that an intrinsic association may exist between PCOS and bipolar disorder, independent of pharmacotherapy. Method: Seventy-eight women identified with PCOS were screened for the presence of bipolar illness using the Mood Disorders Questionnaire (MDQ), a validated self-assessment screen for bipolar disorder. Results: Twenty-eight percent of subjects had either a previous bipolar diagnosis or met MDQ threshold criteria for bipolar screen positivity. Ninety seven percent of previously diagnosed or MDQ screen-positive subjects had no valproate exposure before PCOS diagnosis. Limitations: Possible selection bias, lack of direct comparison with a control group, and lack of knowledge of specific diagnostic work up for PCOS, should all be considered in interpretation of these results. The MDQ as a self-report screen may be less sensitive to detect bipolar II or NOS than bipolar I disorder, and was not corroborated by a diagnostic interview. Conclusion: These preliminary findings suggest a higher rate of bipolar screen positivity among women with PCOS than is expected in the general population, independent of an association with valproate. This observed link between PCOS and bipolar screen-positivity is consistent with a possible shared hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis abnormality. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.7
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