Screening for bipolar disorders: Clinical utilization of the Mood Disorders Questionnaire on an inpatient mood disorders unit

Inter-Rater Reliability between Structured and Non-Structured Interviews Is Fair in Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorders-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

We aimed to find agreement between diagnoses obtained through standardized (SDI) and non-standardized diagnostic interviews (NSDI) for schizophrenia and Bipolar Affective Disorder (BD).

METHODS

A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted. Publications from 2007 to 2020 comparing SDI and NSDI diagnoses in adults without neurological disorders were screened in MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, and SCOPUS, following PROSPERO registration CRD42020187157, PRISMA guidelines, and quality assessment using QUADAS-2.

RESULTS

From 54231 entries, 22 studies were analyzed, and 13 were included in the final meta-analysis of kappa agreement using a mixed-effects meta-regression model. A mean kappa of 0.41 (Fair agreement, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.47) but high heterogeneity (β = 92%) were calculated. Gender, mean age, NSDI setting (Inpatient vs. Outpatient; University vs. Non-university), and SDI informant (Self vs. Professional) were tested as predictors in meta-regression. Only SDI informant was relevant for the explanatory model, leaving 79% unexplained heterogeneity. Egger's test did not indicate significant bias, and QUADAS-2 resulted in "average" data quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Most studies using SDIs do not report the original sample size, only the SDI-diagnosed patients. Kappa comparison resulted in high heterogeneity, which may reflect the influence of non-systematic bias in diagnostic processes. Although results were highly heterogeneous, we measured a fair agreement kappa between SDI and NSDI, implying clinicians might operate in scenarios not equivalent to psychiatry trials, where samples are filtered, and there may be more emphasis on maintaining reliability. The present study received no funding.

Self-report screening instruments differentiate bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder

BACKGROUND

Bipolar disorder (BD) and borderline personality disorder (BPD) share overlapping phenomenology and are frequently misdiagnosed. This study investigated the diagnostic accuracy of the Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ) and McLean Screening Instrument for Borderline Personality Disorder (MSI) in a clinical inpatient setting and whether individual screening items could differentiate BD from BPD.

METHODS

757 sequential inpatients admitted to a Mood Disorder Unit completed both the MDQ and MSI. Screen positive for the MDQ was defined as ≥7/13 symptoms endorsed with concurrence and at least moderate impact. Screen positive for the MSI was defined as a score of ≥7. The clinical discharge summary diagnosis completed by a board-certified psychiatrist was used as the reference standard to identify concordance rates of a positive screen with clinical diagnosis. Individual items predicting one disorder and simultaneously predicting absence of other disorder by odds ratio (OR>and <1) were identified.

RESULTS

Both screening instruments were more specific than sensitive (MDQ 83.7%/ 67.8%, MSI 73.2% / 63.3%). MDQ individual items (elevated mood, grandiosity, increased energy, pressured speech, decreased need for sleep, hyperactivity) were significant predictors of BD diagnosis and non-predictors of BPD diagnosis. Whereas MSI subitem, self-harm behaviors/suicidal attempts predicted BPD in the absence of BD; distrust and irritability were additional predictors of BPD.

CONCLUSION

While this study is limited by the lack of structured diagnostic interview, these data provide differential symptoms to discriminate BD and BPD. Further work with larger datasets and more rigorous bioinformatics machine learning methodology is encouraged to continue to identify distinguishing features of these two disorders to guide diagnostic precision and subsequent treatment recommendations.

Mobile App-Based Self-Report Questionnaires for the Assessment and Monitoring of Bipolar Disorder: Systematic Review

Background

Bipolar disorder is a chronic, progressive illness characterized by recurrent episodes of mania and depression. Self-report scales have historically played a significant role in the monitoring of bipolar symptoms. However, these tools rely on episodic memory, which can be unreliable and do not allow the clinician to monitor brief episodic symptoms or the course of symptoms over shorter periods of time. Mobile app–based questionnaires have been suggested as a tool to improve monitoring of patients with bipolar disorder.

Objective

This paper aims to determine the feasibility and validity of mobile app–based self-report questionnaires.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of the literature according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The PubMed, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases were searched for papers published in English that assessed adherence to and the validity of mobile app–based self-report questionnaires. Relevant studies published from database creation to May 22, 2020, were identified, and results examining the validity of and rates of adherence to app-based self-report questionnaires are reported.

Results

A total of 13 records were identified for inclusion in this review. Of these studies, 4 assessed the concurrent validity of mobile app–based self-report tools, with the majority of findings indicating significant associations between data collected using these tools and the Young Mania Rating Scale, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17, or Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (P<.001 to P=.24). Three studies comparing the variability or range of symptoms between patients with bipolar disorder and healthy controls suggested that these data are capable of differentiating between known groups. Two studies demonstrated statistically significant associations between data collected via mobile app–based self-report tools and instruments assessing other clinically important factors. Adherence rates varied across the studies examined. However, good adherence rates (>70%) were observed in all but 1 study using a once-daily assessment. There was a wide range of adherence rates observed in studies using twice-daily assessments (42%-95%).

Conclusions

These findings suggest that mobile app–based self-report tools are valid in the assessment of symptoms of mania and depression in euthymic patients with bipolar disorder. Data collected using these tools appear to differ between patients with bipolar disorder and healthy controls and are significantly associated with other clinically important measures. It is unclear at this time whether these tools can be used to detect acute episodes of mania or depression in patients with bipolar disorder. Adherence data indicate that patients with bipolar disorder show good adherence to self-report assessments administered daily for the duration of the study periods evaluated.

Screening for psychiatric disorders with self-administered questionnaires

Given the time demands of clinical practice it is not surprising that diagnoses are sometimes missed. To improve diagnostic recognition, self-administered screening scales have been recommended. A problem with much of the research effort on screening scales is the confusion between diagnostic testing and screening. It is important for a screening test to have high sensitivity because the more time intensive/expensive follow-up diagnostic inquiry will presumably only occur in patients who are positive on the initial screen. Investigators vary in how they analyze their data in determining the recommended cutoff score on a self-administered screening questionnaire. To illustrate this, in the present report we examined how often each of the different approaches towards determining a cutoff score on bipolar disorder screening scales were used. We reviewed 68 reports of the performance of the 3 most commonly researched bipolar disorder screening scales to determine how the recommended cutoff on the scale was derived. Most studies recommended a cutoff point on the screening scale that optimized the level of agreement with the diagnostic gold standard. Only 11 (16.2%) studies recommended a cutoff that prioritized the scale's sensitivity. It is important for clinicians to understand the difference between screening and diagnostic tests. The results of the present study indicate that most studies of the performance of the 3 most commonly studied bipolar disorder screening measures have taken the wrong approach in deriving the cutoff score on the scale for the purpose of screening.

Improving the Screening Instrument of Bipolar Spectrum Disorders: Weighted Korean Version of the Mood Disorder Questionnaire

Objective

It is not easy to diagnose bipolar disorders accurately in the clinical setting. Although Korean version of the Mood Disorder Questionnaire (K-MDQ) is easily administered, it still has weakness regarding case finding. In this study, we suggest a new weighted version of the K-MDQ to increase its screening power.

Methods

Ninety-five patients with bipolar disorders and 346 controls (patients with schizophrenia, patients with depressive disorders, patients with anxiety disorders, and subjects without any psychiatric disease) were enrolled in this study. The subjects received brief information on the K-MDQ, and then independently completed the questionnaire.

Results

Using odds ratios, we constructed a new weighted K-MDQ (W-K-MDQ). Item 1 (feel so good or hyper) was weighted 7 times and item 4 (less sleep) 3.5 times. Item 7 (easily distracted) and item 11 (more interested in sex) were excluded. Part 2 (simultaneity) and 3 (functional impairment) were also excluded as in the original K-MDQ. The sensitivity of the W-K-MDQ with a cutoff value of 10 was enhanced to 0.789. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was increased to 0.837.

Conclusion

We suggested a new formula for K-MDQ using 11 of its items. The W-K-MDQ can be easily applied with good sensitivity to screen for bipolar disorders in clinical settings in Korea. Further evaluations with larger samples are needed to establish the usefulness of the W-K-MDQ.