↓ Skip to main content

Investigation of the clinical utility of the hypomania checklist 32 (HCL-32) for the screening of bipolar disorders in the non-clinical adult population

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Investigation of the clinical utility of the hypomania checklist 32 (HCL-32) for the screening of bipolar disorders in the non-clinical adult population
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12888-016-0831-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kounseok Lee, Hyeji Oh, Eun-Ho Lee, Joo Hyun Kim, Ji-Hae Kim, Kyung Sue Hong

Abstract

The hypomania checklist-32 (HCL-32) is a widely used questionnaire developed for identifying hypomanic components in patients with a depressive episode. Measuring and screening previous hypomanic symptoms in individuals without any definite history of depressive episode would also be needed for early detection of bipolar disorders (BDs). This study aimed at testing the clinical utility of the HCL-32 for screening of BDs in the non-clinical population. Lifetime history of hypomanic symptoms was evaluated by using the HCL-32 in 220 patients with BDs and 313 non-clinical individuals. Sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the curve (AUC) of the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) were evaluated for assessing the discriminatory power of the scale and its two sub-domains in screening BDs. The mean HCL-32 total score was significantly higher in the Bipolar II disorder group compared to the non-clinical group (P < 0.001). Most of the items (10/12) of the irritable/risk-taking factor showed higher positive responses in patient groups. Items of active/elated factor showed mixed results. The HCL-32 total score and the active/elated factor score were not adequate for both BDs and its subgroups with AUC values of less than 0.7. The irritable/risk-taking factor score showed higher discrimination power, i.e. AUC for BDs, Bipolar I disorder, and Bipolar II disorder was 0.71, 0.67, and 0.75, respectively. The HCL-32 could not adequately distinguish BD patients from the non-clinical adult population. However, the current study identified items of irritable/risk-taking factor of the scale that could be useful in screening BDs in the general population.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 28%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 13%
Other 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Researcher 4 10%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 6 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 28%
Social Sciences 4 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Neuroscience 3 8%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 6 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 May 2016.
All research outputs
#18,455,405
of 22,867,327 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#3,891
of 4,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,812
of 298,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#95
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,867,327 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,698 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 298,972 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.