↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Korean Medication Algorithm for Bipolar Disorder 2014: comparisons with other treatment guidelines

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
Korean Medication Algorithm for Bipolar Disorder 2014: comparisons with other treatment guidelines
Published in
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, June 2015
DOI 10.2147/ndt.s86552
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jong-Hyun Jeong, Jeong Goo Lee, Moon-Doo Kim, Inki Sohn, Se-Hoon Shim, Hee Ryung Wang, Young Sup Woo, Duk-In Jon, Jeong Seok Seo, Young-Chul Shin, Kyung Joon Min, Bo-Hyun Yoon, Won-Myong Bahk

Abstract

Our goal was to compare the recommendations of the Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Bipolar Disorder 2014 (KMAP-BP 2014) with other recently published guidelines for the treatment of bipolar disorder. We reviewed a total of four recently published global treatment guidelines and compared each treatment recommendation of the KMAP-BP 2014 with those in other guidelines. For the initial treatment of mania, there were no significant differences across treatment guidelines. All recommended mood stabilizer (MS) or atypical antipsychotic (AAP) monotherapy or the combination of an MS with an AAP as a first-line treatment strategy for mania. However, the KMAP-BP 2014 did not prefer monotherapy with MS or AAP for dysphoric/psychotic mania. Aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone were the first-line AAPs in nearly all of the phases of bipolar disorder across the guidelines. Most guidelines advocated newer AAPs as first-line treatment options in all phases, and lamotrigine in depressive and maintenance phases. Lithium and valproic acid were commonly used as MSs in all phases of bipolar disorder. As research evidence accumulated over time, recommendations of newer AAPs - such as asenapine, paliperidone, lurasidone, and long-acting injectable risperidone - became prominent. This comparison identifies that the treatment recommendations of the KMAP-BP 2014 are similar to those of other treatment guidelines and reflect current changes in prescription patterns for bipolar disorder based on accumulated research data. Further studies are needed to address several issues identified in our review.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 17%
Researcher 5 14%
Other 3 8%
Professor 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 9 25%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 33%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 11%
Psychology 2 6%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 10 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 June 2015.
All research outputs
#8,896,592
of 14,687,926 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#1,251
of 2,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,038
of 231,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#68
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,687,926 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 231,446 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.