Talk:Treatment of bipolar disorder

Atypical antipsychotics

Atypical antipsychotics are defined atipical because they do not cause the tardive diskinesia of typical ones Hermann80 (talk) 08:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)hermann80

Hermann80, your assertion is false. The atypicals are defined as "atypical" because they work on different neurotransmitter systems in the brain. Certainly these second generation antipsychotics are less likely to cause tardive dyskinesia however it is well documented that there is still substantial risk. E. Francesca Allan (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hermann80 I have experienced tardive dyskinesia from atypical antipsychotics. I'm not entirely sure what makes them atypical, since I believe both typical and atypical antipsychotics work on dopamine receptors, although atypical ones may have a more narrow spectrum of action and less sedative action from what I know. Scuriusx86 (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Bipolar disorder has not been cured

This statement is true. Do you have proof that bipolar will never be cured? --WikiCats 09:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed that statement because it is too vague. What exactly defines when a disorder/disease/condition is "cured"? Is any medical condition ever really "cured"? It's all about how effective the available treatments are. I think the article should focus on this angle: the effectiveness of treatments, not vague statements about a "cure". -- Barrylb 09:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I have copied your recent wording from the main article, it is better phrased - concentrating on whether a person can be rid of the condition rather than a general statement about whether the disorder "has been cured". -- Barrylb 09:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Barry. We have already had this debate. It lasted several weeks. It begins here “cures are not expected in psychiatry” and ends here Comment(cont.) Several doctors were putting the same argument.

The result of that battle is recorded here. Psychiatry#Practice_of_psychiatry It sates "Most psychiatric illnesses cannot currently be cured." --WikiCats 10:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me say that your article is a good one. Some of your links to article references (like link [12]) don't work - and the section on medical marijuana needs a rewrite. Do you mind if I try? The section on the study is particularly important to me (as a reader) because the critique isn't crystal clear, at least to me. It needs to be said exactly what the author reported, namely, fewer somatic symptoms and daily users reported less depressed mood and more positive affect than non-users. So we can say with relative confidence that there is early evidence that using marijuana elevates mood and affect, a finding that is consistent with 50 years of cultural experience as back up. While it is true that it is a cross sectional study precluding strong causal statements, it seems quite 'unlikely' that only elevated people chose to smoke marijuana. Instead, it's reasonable to suggest marijuana use elevates mood and affect.

I mean, just think about it: That's exactly what scientists and doctors have been saying marijuana DOES for the last 50 years! The study confirms scientific prediction and failed to disconfirm the antithesis: That marijuana use necessarily leads to depression. In this sense it wasn't an earth-shaking study, but I believe it to be competent and properly executed.

Your write up states: "Since the study is a statistical survey no cause and effect relationship can be shown between marijuana use and decreased depression."

Actually, the study is statistical but so what? That has no bearing on cause and effect. Indeed, the statistical models they employ make good use of causal inference making. The real problemmatic issue is that it is a 'correlational' study which won't allow causal inferences unless they are backed up by other means.

Instead, what you want to say is "Preliminary studies in this area...shown less depression and more positive affect than non users" You might want to then caution the reader that more research is needed in the area.

Rick M, Canada, June 13, 2006

Hi Rick, we would welcome any contributions to the article. Make sure you use the Preview button while editing. -- Barrylb 07:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This article mentions antidepressants causing mania in bipolar patients but what about adding the very real possibility of antidepressants causing mania in unipolar patients? E. Francesca Allan (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yoga and bipolar

Whereas yoga may certainly be helpful for regulating mania in some cases, in some people it can engender religious mania. Persons with a propensity toward religious flights of fancy can become fixated on yoga when it is taught with a religious (or pseudo-religious) aspect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.81.35.113 (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Treatable

why does the article start with "Bipolar disorder is treatable."  ? the first line in the description is that it's treatable ? that's not AT ALL appropriate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.209.138 (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Nutrition

Should nutritional therapies be included from quality articles and studies (i.e. peer reviewed, double-blind, randomized, controlled-trials)? I think, absolutely. If there is general agreement, will do... Gnif global (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to marijuana treatment

The only thing stated about some type of "con" to this idea was : "On the other hand cannabis may not be a very suitable medicine for people with bipolar disorder, as scientists have shown cannabis may trigger psychosis, hallucinations or psychotic illnesses in individuals who have an existing predisposition to mental illness or are already suffering from it." Other medications also have a wide list of negative side effects that come along with them, and the only way of knowing if they are going to come into play is to try them. Should they be putting effort into researching this and coming up with safer means of ingesting THC and other cannabinoids? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrackin (talk • contribs) 07:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Under the CAM section, there are references to several ongoing studies. These appear to be unpublished, and still taking place (at the very least, this one is). I don't believe we should be referencing ongoing studies as there are literally no results to look at yet. First off, without any references at all, this entire block of text should likely be removed. And even with refs, I would say it should go until there are results published in a reliable, peer-reviewed journal. Any dissenting opinions? --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur about ongoing studies. Scuriusx86 (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Ketamine

I thought the ketamine study was very interesting, but that the detail was too brief on the page. Given its availability and potential dangers of misuse, I wanted to give the study size, dropouts etc. There's also a more recent study that confirms the findings, again in a small number of pts though. Let's hope someone does a Phase 2/3 soon, it looks promising. I am a biomedical scientist by training now working as a medical writer, I have covered psychiatric conferences and edited primary MS for publication, I also have personal interest in BPD.Gingkofeesh (talk) 12:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Is this appropriate content for WP?

The section on Omega-3 fatty acids contains,

"Omega-3 fatty acids may be found in fish, fish oils, algae, and to a lesser degree in other foods such as flaxseed, flaxseed oil and walnuts. Although the benefits of Omega-3 fatty acids remain debated, they are readily available at drugstores and supermarkets, relatively inexpensive, and have few known side effects. (All of these oils, however, have the capacity to exacerbate GERD—food sources may be a good alternative in such cases.)"

Is this appropriate content? Sounds to me like it verges on medical advice. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the part about exacerbating GERD sounds like medical advice, but to say that there may be benefits and that these benefits are debated, as well as where the supplements can be found available doesn't seem like medical advice to me. If the article were to say someone else believes it can exacerbate GERD, then I think, in my sophomoric education and understanding, it wouldn't be stating it as fact or providing medical advice. It might count as making someone else's medical knowledge available, but I see no difference between including that there is some indication fish oil is helpful and that there is a debate as to its efficacy and including that lithium is an effective treatment with a mechanism of action functioning in a specific manner. I don't think fish oil as a treatment needs to be removed, but I think the statement of GERD causality needs distancingScuriusx86 (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Cost-effectiveness

There is no mention of cost-effectiveness on this article. This isn't all that surprising given the lack of research. However, I feel some detail about what the research says about the cost-effectiveness of various treatments would be valuable. A recent systematic review would be a good place to start. As an economist with limited knowledge of the literature, I'm reluctant to weigh-in. But happy to assist. I wrote a blog post about said review, if that helps. ChrisSampson87 (talk) 09:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Removal of large unsourced section regarding 'natural' lithium salts

Hi! I just removed a large section of text from the article regarding the "natural" lithium aspartate, which, as compared to the "inorganic" lithium carbonate, would be more cost effective, safer, and used in lower doses than the traditional lithium salts. I did this using the mobile app so I never got to add any edit summary, but here it is. It seems as if "natural" lithium purveoyrs now sell lithium aspartate when before the salt lithium orotate was the thing of the day. W·n·C? 15:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: LLIB 1115 - Intro to Information Research

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Breighlee.t (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Breighlee.t (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)