Prevalence and treatment of panic disorder in bipolar disorder: systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Question Recent data suggest that anxiety disorders are as often comorbid with bipolar disorder (BD) as with unipolar depression. The literature on panic disorder (PD) comorbid with BD has been systematically reviewed and subject to meta-analysis. Study selection and analysis The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were thoroughly followed for literature search, selection and reporting of available evidence. The variance-stabilising Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation was used in the meta-analysis of prevalence estimates. Both fixed-effect and random-effects models with inverse variance method were applied to estimate summary effects for all combined studies. Heterogeneity was assessed and measured with Cochran’s Q and I 2 statistics. Findings Overall, 15 studies (n=3391) on cross-sectional prevalence and 25 independent lifetime studies (n=8226) were used to calculate pooled estimates. The overall random-effects point prevalence of PD in patients with BD, after exclusion of one potential outlier study, was 13.0% (95% CI 7.0% to 20.3%), and the overall random-effects lifetime estimate, after exclusion of one potential outlier study, was 15.5% (95% CI 11.6% to 19.9%). There were no differences in rates between BD-I and BD-II. Significant heterogeneity (I 2 >95%) was found in both estimates. Conclusions Estimates that can be drawn from published studies indicate that the prevalence of PD in patients with BD is higher than the prevalence in the general population. Comorbid PD is reportedly associated with increased risk of suicidal acts and a more severe course. There is no clear indication on how to treat comorbid PD in BD. Findings from the current meta-analysis confirm the highly prevalent comorbidity of PD with BD, implicating that in patients with BD, PD might run a more chronic course.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".