Adauto S Clemente1, Breno S Diniz2, Rodrigo Nicolato2, Flavio P Kapczinski3, Jair C Soares4, Josélia O Firmo1, Érico Castro-Costa1. 1. Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil. 2. Department of Mental Health, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil. 3. Molecular Psychiatry Laboratory, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil. 4. Center of Excellence on Mood Disorders, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Texas Health and Science University, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: 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). METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSION: 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.
OBJECTIVE: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). METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSION: 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.
Authors: Carlos Blanco; Wilson M Compton; Tulshi D Saha; Benjamin I Goldstein; W June Ruan; Boji Huang; Bridget F Grant Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2016-10-07 Impact factor: 4.791
Authors: Breno S Diniz; Antonio L Teixeira; Fei Cao; Ariel Gildengers; Jair C Soares; Meryl A Butters; Charles F Reynolds Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2017-01-04 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Lumbini Azim; Paul Hindmarch; Georgiana Browne; Thomas Chadwick; Emily Clare; Paul Courtney; Lyndsey Dixon; Nichola Duffelen; Tony Fouweather; John R Geddes; Nicola Goudie; Sandy Harvey; Timea Helter; Eva-Maria Holstein; Garry Martin; Phil Mawson; Jenny McCaffery; Richard Morriss; Judit Simon; Daniel Smith; Paul R A Stokes; Jenn Walker; Chris Weetman; Faye Wolstenhulme; Allan H Young; Stuart Watson; R Hamish McAllister-Williams Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2021-07-05 Impact factor: 3.630