Aggressive Behavior in Children and Adolescents With Bipolar Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review of the Prevalence, Associated Factors, and Treatment
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective: Bipolar disorder (BD) in childhood and adolescence is associated with aggressive behaviors, which might be common and in turn associated with poor clinical outcomes. This is the first systematic review to provide a comprehensive view of the current status of the knowledge about aggressive behaviors in youth with BD. Method: We conducted a PRISMA-compliant systematic review of studies investigating aggressive behaviors in children and adolescents with BD (PROSPERO: CRD42023431674). A systematic multi-step literature search was performed on PubMed and the Web of Science. Literature search and data extraction were carried out independently. We provided a systematic synthesis of the findings from the included studies We assessed risk of bias using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cross-sectional and cohort studies. Results: Of the 2,277 identified records 35 were included; mean age was 12.4 years, and 57.1% were male individuals. 7 studies reported on the prevalence of aggressive behavior among BD children and adolescent population, with 5 of them reporting a prevalence of over 69.0%. Aggressive behaviors were more common in children and adolescents with BD than in those with ADHD or depression. Aggressive behaviors were associated with borderline personality disorder features and poor family functioning. Valproic acid received empirical support for its efficacy in reducing aggressive behavior in BD. Conclusion: Aggressive behaviors are prevalent among youth with BD and warrant clinical attention and specific evidence-based management. Further research on prognostic factors and psychosocial interventions evaluated prospectively is required. Diversity & Inclusion Statement: One or more of the authors of this paper self-identifies as a member of one or more historically underrepresented racial and/or ethnic groups in science. One or more of the authors of this paper self-identifies as a member of one or more historically underrepresented sexual and/or gender groups in science. One or more of the authors of this paper self-identifies as living with a disability. We actively worked to promote sex and gender balance in our author group. We actively worked to promote inclusion of historically underrepresented racial and/or ethnic groups in science in our author group.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».