BACKGROUND: Monitoring mental health treatment outcomes for populations requires an understanding as to which patient information is needed in electronic format and is feasible to obtain in routine care. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether bipolar disorder outcomes can be accurately predicted and how much clinical detail is needed to do so. RESEARCH DESIGN, DATA SOURCES, AND PARTICIPANTS: Longitudinal study of bipolar disorder patients treated during 2000 to 2004 in the 19-site Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for Bipolar Disorder observational study arm (N=3168). Clinical data were obtained at baseline and quarterly for over 1 year. We fit a "gold standard" longitudinal random-effects regression model using a detailed clinical information and estimated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) to predict accuracy using a validation sample. The model was then modified to include patient characteristics feasible in routinely collected electronic data (eg, administrative data). We compared the AUCs for the "limited-detail" and gold standard models, testing for differences between the AUCs using the validation sample. MEASURE: Remission, defined as Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale score <5 and Young Mania Rating Scale score <4. RESULTS: The gold standard models had baseline AUC=0.80 (95% confidence interval=0.74 to 0.86) and 0.75(0.64 to 0.86) at 1-year follow-up. The predicted accuracies of the limited-detail model were lower at baseline [AUC=0.67(0.60 to 0.75)]; correlated test χ=14.25, P=0.002] and not statistically different from the gold standard model at 1 year [AUC=0.67(0.54-0.80); correlated test χ=2.88, P=0.090]. CONCLUSIONS: Future work is needed to develop clinically accurate and feasible models to predict bipolar disorder outcomes. Clinically detailed and limited models performed similarly for shorter-term prediction at 1-year; however, there is room for improvement in prediction accuracy.
BACKGROUND: Monitoring mental health treatment outcomes for populations requires an understanding as to which patient information is needed in electronic format and is feasible to obtain in routine care. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether bipolar disorder outcomes can be accurately predicted and how much clinical detail is needed to do so. RESEARCH DESIGN, DATA SOURCES, AND PARTICIPANTS: Longitudinal study of bipolar disorderpatients treated during 2000 to 2004 in the 19-site Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for Bipolar Disorder observational study arm (N=3168). Clinical data were obtained at baseline and quarterly for over 1 year. We fit a "gold standard" longitudinal random-effects regression model using a detailed clinical information and estimated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) to predict accuracy using a validation sample. The model was then modified to include patient characteristics feasible in routinely collected electronic data (eg, administrative data). We compared the AUCs for the "limited-detail" and gold standard models, testing for differences between the AUCs using the validation sample. MEASURE: Remission, defined as Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale score <5 and Young Mania Rating Scale score <4. RESULTS: The gold standard models had baseline AUC=0.80 (95% confidence interval=0.74 to 0.86) and 0.75(0.64 to 0.86) at 1-year follow-up. The predicted accuracies of the limited-detail model were lower at baseline [AUC=0.67(0.60 to 0.75)]; correlated test χ=14.25, P=0.002] and not statistically different from the gold standard model at 1 year [AUC=0.67(0.54-0.80); correlated test χ=2.88, P=0.090]. CONCLUSIONS: Future work is needed to develop clinically accurate and feasible models to predict bipolar disorder outcomes. Clinically detailed and limited models performed similarly for shorter-term prediction at 1-year; however, there is room for improvement in prediction accuracy.
Authors: S L McElroy; L L Altshuler; T Suppes; P E Keck; M A Frye; K D Denicoff; W A Nolen; R W Kupka; G S Leverich; J R Rochussen; A J Rush; R M Post Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Michael Berk; Felicity Ng; Wei V Wang; Joseph R Calabrese; Philip B Mitchell; Gin S Malhi; Mauricio Tohen Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2007-07-26 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: K N Roy Chengappa; Robert W Baker; Lixin Shao; Lakshmi N Yatham; Mauricio Tohen; Samuel Gershon; David J Kupfer Journal: Bipolar Disord Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 6.744
Authors: Benjamin A Goldstein; Ann Marie Navar; Michael J Pencina; John P A Ioannidis Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2016-05-17 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Kenney Ng; Amol Ghoting; Steven R Steinhubl; Walter F Stewart; Bradley Malin; Jimeng Sun Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2013-12-25 Impact factor: 6.317