Premium
Measurement tools for assessment of older age bipolar disorder: A systematic review of the recent global literature
Author(s) -
Rej Soham,
Quayle William,
Forester Brent P,
Dols Annemiek,
Gatchel Jennifer,
Chen Peijun,
Gough Sarah,
Fox Rebecca,
Sajatovic Martha,
Strejilevich Sergio A,
Eyler Lisa T
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
bipolar disorders
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.285
H-Index - 129
eISSN - 1399-5618
pISSN - 1398-5647
DOI - 10.1111/bdi.12566
Subject(s) - neuroimaging , systematic review , categorization , biomarker , bipolar disorder , psychology , data collection , clinical psychology , medicine , medline , cognition , data science , psychiatry , computer science , artificial intelligence , biochemistry , chemistry , statistics , mathematics , political science , law
Objectives More than 50% of people with bipolar disorder will be age 60 years or older by 2030. There is a need for more data to guide assessment and treatment in older age bipolar disorder ( OABD ); however, interpretation of findings from small, single‐site studies may not be generalizable and there are few large trials. As a step in the direction of coordinated large‐scale OABD data collection, it is critical to identify which measurements are currently used and identify potential gaps in domains typically assessed. Methods An international group of OABD experts performed a systematic literature review to identify studies examining OABD in the past 6 years. Relevant articles were assessed to categorize the types of clinical, cognitive, biomarker, and neuroimaging OABD tools routinely used in OABD studies. Results A total of 53 papers were identified, with a broad range of assessments. Most studies evaluated demographic and clinical domains, with fewer studies assessing cognition. There are relatively few biomarker and neuroimaging data, and data collection methods were less comprehensively covered. Conclusion Assessment tools used in the recent OABD literature may help to identify both a minimum and a comprehensive dataset that should be evaluated in OABD . Our review also highlights gaps where key clinical outcomes have not been routinely assessed. Biomarker and neuroimaging assessment could be further developed and standardized. Clinical data could be combined with neuroimaging, genetic, and other biomarkers in large‐scale coordinated data collection to further improve our understanding of OABD phenomenology and biology, thereby contributing to research that advances care.