Talk:Bipolar II disorder/Archive 1

Merge

STRONGLY DISAGREE to any merger of this article to Bipolar disorder as not being a sound direction to move in -----> unless the Bipolar disorder article sets out immediately to describe the disorder as a spectrum of disorders with links thru-out directing readers to articles of specific interest. None of the sub-articles should redirect to any of the other articles - unless the title of Bipolar disorder itself redirect to the Spectrum article so the entire point gets across quickly and directly.

Collapsing now-moot cross-posted remarks and an edtor's own essay, all dated Feb 2008, to conserve talk-page space.

Additionally, I am strongly of the opinion that the disambiguation page be deleted as it only leads to confusion and fragmentation of psychiatry's current understanding of this inherited disorder. Below, I have copied my response from the Bipolar_spectrum Talk page. Actually, there is, necessarily, going to be a multiple of articles that must necessarily arrow out from the Bipolar spectrum disorders article as starting with the spectrum article is the only way to adequately deal with Bipolar. I might suggest that, if anything, Bipolar disorder actually be a description of the spectrum, covering the history of recognition of the disorder's breadth over time, as well as a general covering of treatments. Each sub-type of the spectrum of bipolar disorders, as well as an article about the treatment of them, and even, perhaps, an article about the difficulties in differential diagnosis, plus the confusing overlay of the many co-diagnoses that are so often found in Bipolar patients. As someone with generations of Bipolar I and Bipolar II in friends and family, married to a psychiatrist for 20 years and having worked closely with doctors treating the disorders for 5 years, plus having closely and continuously kept up with ongoing research studies, I feel kinda qualified to comment on this. Bipolar spectrum deals with everything as follows: what doctors call Depression, but which lasts for decades, a lifetime - and is not connected to any loss or source of sadness - it just is. Actually, in all the bipolar spectrum, even tho mania is what one hears most about, depression is the over-riding, most prevalent state of emotion. Agitated depression and vegetative depressions are found in abundance. If you treat an agitated depression, seeing the only "symptom" which is free-floating overwhelming anxiety, with valium, the next day your patient will be suicidally depressed - even tho the anxiety will have, of course, disappeared. Bipolar I is the only disorder originally recognized as such and was officially labeled Manic-Depression. Little or no attention was given to the depression, but the readily recognized Manic Symptoms, ranging from rapid speech reflecting the racing brain, grandiose (and ludicrous) plans to become very wealthy, spending money like there was no tomorrow, maxing out credit cards, by outrageous behavior very out of the usual for the patient and sometimes extreme sexual promiscuity or sexual encounters far from the usual norm for the patient. As the mania progressed, uncontrollable speech, delusions and psychosis could develop. Involuntary hospitalization was the only possible treatment. This degree of the disorder is referred to Hyper-Mania. Lithium was the first and for a long time was the only medication available to control the mania, but did nothing for the depression since the tricyclics weren't around yet. Which was most unfortunate, for patients can go for years without a manic break, yet still have problems with irritability, social dysfunction and a heightened risk of suicide. Bipolars at any point on the spectrum are routinely denied life insurance. Treatment begins with Lithium, progresses to Depakote (both of these require relatively frequent blood tests so toxicity does not develop), then to anti-psychotics if the other treatments fail or have too many side effects. Of course, antipsychotics have their own side effects, especially tremendous weight gain in the new-generation "safer" ones. In Bipolar II, a more recently recongnized form on the bipolar spectrum, has manias most with a stretch of a few days or more of elevated enthusiastic very happy mood with tons of energy used in a very goal-directed productive manner ---- but they will not need any sleep, tho as the days go by, a periodic nap of 3 hours at the most. I have had therapists tell me that their idea employee would be this type of patient (as long as the Hypo-Mania lasted). A patient may have even as little as 5 or fewer such episodes in their entire lives, yet years of depressive problems at other times. Or they may be Rapid Cyclers with several episodes of greater or lesser degree of being "upbeat" a year, Ultra Rapid Cyclers and even the now recognized Ultra-Ultra Rapid Cyclers that may cycle several times a week or even during a single day. And they generally are kept continuously antidepressants. But the tale-tell characteristic of these patients is IMPULSIVENESS which leads to problems in all facets of their education, employment, friendships and more intimate relationships. Depending upon circumstances in their lives at the time, they may enter a period of extreme irritability, frequent emotional outbursts, whether of torrents of tears or yelling rages. Impulsiveness alternates with the inability to get organized enough to plan, execute plans and they can become unable to be gainfully employed. For Bipolar IIs, Lamictal, a relatively new anticonvulsant, is the drug of choice, the first one to try, because it controls impulsiveness and helps the patient direct their own life towards goals and follow thru to a successful conclusion, plus it has an anti-depressant effect. The antidepressants most often prescribed are an old tricyclic called desipramine and the atypical Wellbutrin (also marketed to stop smoking). In short, the bipolar spectrum of disorders is impossible to deal with in one article. This particular article should be expanded to point out that someone diagnosed with a bipolar illness is much more likely to have ADD/ADHD, Borderline PD and other PDs, dual diagnosis (which means co-existing with drug & alcohol abuse as the patient attempts to "self-medicate"). And there are more. In recent MRI studies, those with bipolar illness have been found to have specific brain differences from the general population. The reason anti-convulsants are thought to be effective has evolved from a theory that the impulsiveness originates in the too-rapid firing of certain brain cells, over-riding the brain structures vital in normal inhibitory effects... Bipolar requires smaller doses than in persons with epilepsy.

Spotted Owl (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Spotted Owl (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems with diagnostic criteria

The American Psychiatric Association has not released its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders into public domain, but claims copyright. The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter of complaint (Ticket:2010030910040817, for those with access) about the use of their diagnostic criteria in this and a number of other articles. Currently, this content is blanked pending investigation, which will last approximately one week. Please feel free to provide input at the copyright problems board listing during that time. Individuals with access to the books would be particularly welcome in helping to conduct the investigation. Assistance developing a plan to prevent misuse of the APA's material on Wikipedia projects would also be welcome. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Bias

The phrase "The most over relied upon treatment for reducing bipolar II disorder symptoms is medication, usually in the form of mood stabilizers." is biased, in my opinion. Specifically the phrasing "most over relied upon" does not seem to be objective. A possibly better rephrasing would be "Medication, usually in the form of mood stabilizers, is the common treatment for reducing bipolar II disorder symptoms." assuming that this statement is true at all; it might be true, but I'd like to see a reference backing that statement up. Jaknowlden (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Compare

Expand the content more. Explain in more detail about the Genetics with this disorder and expand on each of the symptoms. Compare it to Bipolar I and explain the differences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMC554466 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Needs Clarification

This article is lacking in definitions, research, symptoms, prognosis and several other items I believe would be useful in bring this article up to the correct standard. If I understand correctly, material from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is off limits under copy right laws "unless" it is reworded in a way that does not infringe upon the copyright. That being said, what this article needs is a categorical definition of Bipolar II Disorder that resembles the scientifically accepted definition in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. I also think that this article, along with classifications and symptoms/signs, needs information like prognosis and treatment along with any new research (if any) that is being done on the subject. Krhatley (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association may be many things, but it is certainly NOT "scientifically accepted". Bartflower (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions

There seems to be an almost gratuitous use of the adverb 'even' in this page, when comparing type 2 with type 1. This is unnecessary and perpetuates a stereotype --Zeegoman (talk) 07:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest that this article needs more detailed information on signs and symptoms and classification thereof. I also think that information regarding treatment and management of this disorder that goes more in depth than it already states would make this article better. Along with those, prognosis (what the disorder means for the person in the long run) and possible causes of the disorder would lead to a better understanding in this article. Adding a history of the disorder could be interesting as well along with prevalence in certain societies, genders, ages, races, etc. would be very helpful and improve the article quite a bit in terms of accuracy. Krhatley (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that hypomania is "not associated" with psychosis. It is associated with a lower degree of (or lower severity of) psychosis, but, having experienced these personally, I can say that hypomanic thoughts can veer off course from reality in a way that is associated with, one might say, "hypo-psychosis". I would suggest revising that sentence to "hypomania is associated with a lesser degree of psychosis." 10/9/2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:C618:BA00:9555:3B84:4BB7:A74C (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s page regarding “Bipolar II: disorder” is misleading, inaccurate and offensive. The disinformation is harmful and further adds the discrimination and prejudice those medically categorized under the DSM’s stipulations. The necessary details that need be addressed, corrected and added are overwhelming to cover in one post. I will attempt to cover some of the initially blatant, inaccurate, misleading and harmful content. Usage of wording such as “less severe” or “lower” infer bipolar II as a disease of inferior difficulty, less significant then it’s other associated manifestations. The use of bipolar II as a disorder also adds to the already highly misunderstood disease. The neurology of bipolar is not a disorder, it’s a different order. A disorder infers a standardized correct order of what is considered healthy, a template deemed as socially acceptable, biological requirements. Bipolar II is in no way less severe in any regard. When properly researched, assessed and addressed, its manifestations are far more complex than bipolar I, as an example. What treatments and results provided for bipolar I are less complex than bipolar II, with higher success rates for acceptable “reintegration” and functionality (peer reviewed sources can be provided). Bipolar II is significantly treatment resistant, resulting in a profound turbulent psychological and psychological disruptions. As mentioned, there is far more information to be address, both the immensity of quantity and quality. To find the amount of erroneous information on Wikipedia, is far too overwhelming to be address is one post. I hope this is of help and understood as a means of opening further conversation, clarification and in no manner meant as an attack on Wikipedia, in regard! Wikipedia is my go-to, has been for many years and is an extremely helpful resource.L.Search.backup (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC) (User: L.Search.Backup)

PSY 101 Assignment

I think this is a very poorly wrote article, it could use alot more information as to what Bipolar 2 Disorder is. There is not even information for someone to fully understand the topic. There needs to be in depth compare-ism between this type of Bipolar disorder and others people may struggle with. Some questions that I feel need to be answered in the article are. What triggers the bipolar outbreaks? How does someone develop this disorder? Is this type of Bipolar disorder rare compared to someone with the regular Bipolar disorder? Are there any cures or medication that can be taken to prevent the outbreaks? --Baldanza92 (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC

Your "Symptoms" portion of the article gives reader of a taste of how to detect Type II Bipolar Disorder; it's short, sweet and to the point! You should have chosen a more reliable source (preferably one with a .gov domain). Your article should also be rewritten to be more grammatically correct, currently the wording seems a bit unprofessional. Nevertheless great job! Keep up the good work. STPyle (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks as if you citation is correct and there is no sign of plagiarism. You might also want to insert a sentence that is not directly from somebody else but yet new statement that is formed over information you about read Bipolar disorder. AlexisBPorter (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

REMEMBER sign your things! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexisBPorter (talk • contribs) 01:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Critique User:BSchaefferNERD citation, the information given is clear and coherent to the article, as we as giving good articles. I only will add a little detail of information, as well as add an additional source information--JC92scc (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the symptoms for this article needs to be improved. If more symptoms of the disorder were present i think that would help make the disorder sound more realistic to me. I also think more case studies of people who have this disorder should be added more. --Cearesc (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"To-Do List" for Bipolar II Educational Assignment

Outline

Introduction

Signs & Symptoms Smythadon (User talk:Smythadon)

• Depressive Episodes
• Hypomanic Episodes
• Other Features?

I'll research the symptoms that those afflicted with Bipolar II are affected by, as well as any signs that may not have negative effects for the patient but may be indicative of Bipolar II. I imagine some of my research will feed into the Diagnosis section. These are some preliminary sources I've found:

• EBSCOhost: Characteristics of bipolar II patients with interpersonal rejection sensiti...

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.linfield.edu:2048/ehost/detail?sid=b22134b3-01f1-4b4f-a804-753e1c3c3e00%40sessionmgr14&vid=1&hid=18&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=pbh&AN=5509615

• EBSCOhost: ‘It’s not just anger ... It’s Bipolar II’

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.linfield.edu:2048/ehost/detail?sid=bcceeb24-aed1-4cd1-946b-1dd62d8d78ff%40sessionmgr13&vid=1&hid=18&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=26771795 Smythadon (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC) Causes danielle.scott4 (User talk:danielle.scott4)

• Genetic
• Physiological
• Environmental

Diagnosis Kmfrance (talk)

• Criteria
• Differential Diagnosis
• Challenges with Diagnosis

I hope to research and discuss how this disorder is typically diagnosed (for example, is diagnosis typically with a psychologist or psychiartist, or do patients end up talking to a physician?). I hope to address challeges with diagnosing this condition such as how it specifically differs from regular Bipolar Disorder and what other disorders may represent like Bipolar II. Kmfrance (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Cullen-Drill, M., & Cullen-Dolce, D. (2008). Early and accurate diagnosis of bipolar II disorder leads to successful outcomes. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 44(2), 110-119. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6163.2008.00160.x
• Wilson, S. T., Stanley, B., Oquendo, M. A., Goldberg, P., Zalsman, G., & Mann, J. (2007). Comparing impulsiveness, hostility, and depression in borderline personality disorder and bipolar II disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 68(10), 1533-1539. doi:10.4088/JCP.v68n1010

Management Kittybug (User talk:Kittybug)

• Types of Therapy
• Medication

I plan on researching and finding different articles that deal with different ways of handling and treating bipolar II disorder. Along with these specific articles and books about this, I will also be looking for different articles and books about bipolar disorder II so that maybe there will be more information about different forms of treatment. I plan on finishing this research by next week, so I can begin writing the article. The resources below are all in ALA format except the middle one because I am waiting for the article to come in to see who wrote it. (These articles are all peer-reviewed)--107.0.48.207 (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Benazzi, Franco. (2006). Bipolar disorder: Current issues in diagnosis and management. Psychiatric Times, 23(9), 26. Retrieved October 11,2011 from Academic OneFile database.
• El-Mallakh, R., Weisler, R., Townsend, M., Ginsberg, L. (2006). Bipolar II disorder: Current and future treatment options. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry, 18(4), 259. Retrieved October 11,2011 from Academic Search Complete database.
• Treatment of Bipolar II Disorder with lamotrigine.
• Hadjipavlou, G., Mok, G., Yatham, L. (2004). Pharmacotherapy of bipolar II disorder: a critical review of current evidence. Bipolar Disorders, 6(1), 14. Retrieved October 12, 2011 from Academic Search Complete.

Prognosis krhatley (User talk:krhatley)

• Functioning
• Recovery & Recurrence
• Mortality

I plan on finding different articles (peer-reviewed) and books on this subject and subtopics. I've already found some useful articles and a couple of books that I will post under this. I'm hoping to get most of the research part done by next week so that I can start actually writing the article and putting in the references. Krhatley (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC) Sources (not all in APA format yet):

• Baig, M., Kommor, M., & Bhanot, V. (2009). A patient with bipolar-II disorder. Psychiatric Annals, 39(10), 898-900. doi:10.3928/00485718-20090924-01
• Neurocognitive impairments and their relationship with psychosocial functioning in euthymic bipolar II disorder.Author: Martino, Diego J
• Authors: Randall, Carol, U Nevada, Las Vegas, US Source: Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering
• Behavioral Management Guide: Essential Treatment strategies for child psychotherapy by Muriel Warren
• Bipolar Breakthrough: the essential guide to going beyond mood swings to harness your highs, escape the cycles of recurrent depression, and thrive with Bipolar II by Ronald R. Fieve

Epidemiology & History Kmfrance (talk)

For this particular section, we hope to include historical information about this particular disorder...

• When was Bipolar II defined as a legitimate disorder in the DSM?
• What were its origins?
• Can we associate this disorder with historical figures?

Society & Culture

Deadlines are as follows:

Wednesday October 12th = Post initial sources to Bipolar II talk page

Thursday October 13th = Post "to-do" list and separate explanations

Friday October 28th = Rough draft of designated sections and sources

Tuesday November 1st = Rough draft of article due

Revert of 27 September 2011 addition to lead

I've just manually reverted this recent addition to the article's lead. I'm sure the addition was well-intentioned, but it introduced so many completely erroneous statements that I thought it basically irretrievable. It was the only contribution made to Wikipedia so far by the user who added the passage, and his assertions comparing the relative severity of Bipolar I versus Bipolar II were exactly reversed from the way they're normally portrayed by experts. It's actually pretty disconcerting that so blatantly incorrect a passage stayed up in an article that's as prominent as this one is for almost a full month.

Anyway, I'm obliged to support my preceding remarks, of course. There are myriad sources available, but I'll just present the following, for now: Ronald R. Fieve, one of this field's most widely respected contributors, with over 200 relevant papers to his credit on PubMed, refers to Bipolar II as the "soft" form of the disorder, as do so many researchers and clinicians in the field. I don't have time to properly add the content and corresponding citation to our article at the moment, but see e.g his 2006 book specifically on Bipolar II. Beginning on page 14 of that book, and continuing through page 21 and beyond, Dr. Fieve describes and compares the two forms of the disorder. While it appears to be correct that people who've been diagnosed with Bipolar II really are more prone to suicide than Bipolar I sufferers are, it'll be clear to anyone who'll take the time to read Dr. Fieve's remarks that he considers Bipolar I the more severe and disabling form of the disorder by far, and that his remarks are fully supported by DSM IV distinctions between the two forms.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ideas for Improvement

In reviewing another group's article, it seems like we are right on track in regards to content and material. However, I think we need to get up the history of Bipolar II before our article is finalized. Has anyone found anything for the history of this disorder? krhatley, could you see if your book has information on when/where/why Bipolar II was discovered? Let me know and I can do the research. The only other suggestion I have for our article is to perhaps incorporate an image for visual effect. Kmfrance (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I am also doing a peer review for this article. I think you are very organized and all seem to know what you have to research. however, I would just like to see a case or two of people with bipolar disorder in the history section perhaps. From that you can better give insight into what living with bipolar disorder is like. It may also answer give some clues to answer questions like, what types of people are prone to bipolar disorder? how do symptoms vary from case to case? Good luck with the rest of your article!(Kyokoyama (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC))

Feedback on the Roughdraft

I made a few typographic changes but in general encourage you all to edit carefully. Even though some material was here before you took it on this is now an article YOU are working on so any of the comments on the talk page, poorly written sentences, encouragement to cite references should all be addressed to improve the article quality

• I added "Signs" to "Symptoms" as some are DSM symptoms whereas others are characteristics/signs. You need a citation for these lists.
• The Relapse section seems like it should be included in the Course/Prognosis section vs. where it currently is.
• The sentence that follows "Relapse" is in desperate need of a citation (if it can be supported by research evidence which I'm not sure it can) or it needs to be removed.
• It is unclear to me why you have two separate sections for DSM-IV criteria and Diagnosis? Perhaps consider a stand alone box with the DSM criteria that could stand to the side of the Diagnosis section? Otherwise I suggest combining and integrating (otherwise redundant)
• Causes needs to be expanded and citations added.
• Same with Treatment section - need to cite; additionally consider adding in information about efficacy and decreased relapse associated with adjunctive treatments like family therapy (David Miklowitz and colleagues have done a lot of research looking at how family therapy improves outcome)
• Why are management and treatment separate. I strongly encourage you to combine. You also need to cite this section and describe in full sentences
• I would move "Epidemiology" before Causes. Some of the information included in the "Diagnosis" section speaks to epidemiology and should be re-organized here. Additionally in "Diagnosis" there is a section on Assessment so perhaps adding this to the title or having a subheading would help with organization
• High Profile cases - perhaps add Kay Jamison and a link to her classic book?
• Move up "Specifiers" to Diagnosis/DSM-IV
• Consolidate Resources and References unless you feel they should be separate.

Tatompki (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review- Bipolar II disorder

Well done! I reviewed your article for the peer review assignment and it was very informative. The information is clearly organized and easy to follow. I was impressed with the amount of information especially for this being a rough draft. There were a couple of words that might be confusing to people who have little knowledge of psychology,and a few missing citations, but all in all I think it is a really good article. (Mackleah (talk) 01:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC))

I think it looks good for a rough draft! I have a couple of suggestions for your article. Management and Causes might need more citation, although I really like how the signs and symptoms are bullet pointed, makes it easier to read. Specifiers may fit better next to signs and symptoms, but if you do, explain what specifiers are and how they’re different than signs and symptoms/why you’re making them separate. BilliChavez (talk)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bipolar II disorder/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GrahamColm (talk · contribs) 20:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been following the recent work on the article, but despite the work done it is not ready for GA status yet. It still lacks citations, particularly those that satisfy WP:MEDRS. The section "Signs and symptoms" is still just a stub, and the bullet point list needs developing into fluid, well written prose. There are numerous WP:MoS non-compliances throughout the article. And where is the History and Epidemiology section? There is still plagiarized text visible in edit mode, and this is still a concern that has to be fully checked for the whole contribution. I am sorry but this nomination is a quick fail – there's so much work still needed. Graham Colm (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It is also listy (lists should be converted to prose), needs correct paraphrased info in the Diagnosis section, and should comply with WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS. It is not close to GA status, and needs a good deal of work still. Also, we don't put citations on a stand-alone line at the end of a list-- text should be prosified and cited inline, so the citation isn't left hanging. No idea what a "specifier" is, but see WP:MEDMOS for correct section headings for disorders. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional Feedback

You've made some improvements but as the reviewer for GAN suggests there are still a number of issues that need to be addressed including incorporating appropriate citations for all statements made (not just those that you have written) and, in general, careful editing to improve flow and readability. As suggested you should describe the signs/symptoms (perhaps linking to other articles when appropriate). Why did epidemiology go away? You might also want to consider a "future research" section that discusses unaddressed questions. Finally, with regard to "Specifiers" it is unclear that what you mean here are DSM-IV specifiers. You will want to link or explain what is meant and include with the relevant section on criteria.Tatompki (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say that the page is no longer stub-class, and have revised the project banners accordingly; asking the project pages for reassessment after the page is stable would be a good idea (it may well be properly rated higher than start-class). Allens (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Lamotrigine

The lamotrigine page mentions use in Bipolar II disorder, but neither it nor the reference for this mentions mixing with lithium as a first-line combination, as far as I can tell. Lamotrigine has mood stabilizing properties in and of itself, according to that page; the antidepressant effects are predominant only at low doses. Allens (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Editing

Hey group, I did some editing on our article today. Mostly my changes were superficial, grammar and some wording. I did go through and add the ISBN # for the Bipolar II book that I had found and gave to you all. Danielle, I'm wondering if you could maybe add some more information to your section? And if you could go through and add in all the citations that would be awesome. Thanks, Krhatley (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I was going to do some editing too and I noticed that some of the references to the disorder are capitalized and some are not. I assume that it should really be Bipolar II but I wanted to check and make sure there wasn't something I was missing. Cleanelephant (talk) 01:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Second paragraph of "Bioplar II disorder' contains contradictions.

Second paragraph contains contradictory assertions The first sentence

 Bipolar II is believed to be under-diagnosed because hypomanic behavior often presents as high-functioning behavior.

contradicts the third and fourth sentences.

 Hypomania in bipolar II may manifest itself in disorganized racing thoughts, irritability, anxiety, insomnia, or all of the above combined. Because these agitated symptoms are negative, it may be difficult to distinguish a bipolar II hypomanic state from depression.

The introduction should be completely rewritten, the list replaced with prose, and citations should be greatly increased. In fact, the article should be greatly shortened and reduced to stub class until it can be rewritten.

Neonorange (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Editting for Class Project

Hi all! I am working on this page for a class project (undergrad psychology). I have work in progress currently in my sandbox. I welcome all feedback! I haven't been able to add all the information I'd like yet, but appreciate your comments on what I have so far. Hopefully the rest will be up soon! HayRayLee (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Per Dr. Multhaup's instructions:

(a). 4.5

(b). The external links are great as they show the many ways readers could keep searching for information - your definitions were clear as well!

(c) and (d). The introduction is clear and helpful – the only change I would make is to maybe define chronic? Just in parentheses or something. The links elsewhere are great, so keep those as they are terms people may want to explore.

Signs and Symptoms: I like the way you separated these into sections and bullet points for clear and easy access of the information. The external links are great, and the language you used is scholarly yet accessible, so well done. See below for just a few items to define or to consider expanding a bit.

History and Future Directions: - I am a bit confused – did Carl Jung first make the distinction or did Fieve and Dunner? Or were you separating those two distinctions by the fact that 1975 is much more recent than 1903? - The section overall is great – you give a clear outline of the history of the disorder as well as where it is headed. Great job!

Minor changes: 1. Introduction: The comma in the first paragraph of the introduction should be after “time” and before the citation. 2. “Hypomanic Episodes” section: Define grandiosity and psychomotor agitation (just for clarification for those who may access this page) 3. “Mixed State” section: There are two periods in the first sentence, so remove the one after the citation. 4. “History and Future Directions” section: move the period in the second sentence (following Jung’s statement) inside the quotation mark after “psychotic.” a. 2nd paragraph: add a “d” to “studies since have indicated” i. “Evidence points to a genetic component differentiating type I from type II” – citation for this? Unless 32 serves as that citation and is located at the end of the paragraph? b. 3rd paragraph: define DSM-IV i. Do not capitalize “only” in the parentheses

(e). 4.5

Racolepsychcapstone (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Updated

For my class project, I have made revisions to the Introduction (including what I think is most salient to an initial comprehension of the disorder); the Signs and Symptoms; and History Sections. I also added a brief section regarding Comborbid Conditions which are so common in bipolar II disorder that I thought they warranted reference. HayRayLee (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation vs. reading ("read as")

The first sentence in this article starts with, "Bipolar II disorder (BP-II; pronounced "type two bipolar disorder")" but that's not a pronunciation, that's a completely different reading. Propose "Bipolar II disorder (BP-II; read as "type two bipolar disorder")." Thoughts? Hikikomoridesuyo (talk) 08:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Delay in treatment

Will put this here until I can find a home for it.

There is often failure to diagnose and treat bipolar disorder, more so amongst patients with type II. In a study on delayed treatment, it was found that women were given treatment much later than men were, starting lithium treatment 11 years after the onset of the disorder compared to 6.9 years for men.

Watermelon mang (talk) 05:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

References

History

Although interesting, I reverted the following addition as it doesn't really have much relevance for diagnosis. I suppose it might be possible to add a new history section preceding the "popular culture" section per WP:MEDMOS.

Historically, the first diagnostic distinction to be made between manic-depression involving mania, and that involving hypomania, came from Carl Gustav Jung in 1903. In his paper Jung introduced the non-psychotic version of the illness with the introductory statement, “I would like to publish a number of cases whose peculiarity consists in chronic hypomanic behaviour” where “it is not a question of real mania at all but of a hypomanic state which cannot be regarded as psychotic”. Jung illustrated the hypomanic variation with five case histories, each involving hypomanic behaviour, occasional bouts of depression, and mixed mood states, which involved personal and interpersonal upheaval for each patient.

Watermelon mang (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean like this? 58.165.118.171 (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 4 February 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Timqle.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 April 2021 and 11 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kucharczj, Pakizerc. Peer reviewers: ChaseArmy, GabrielleSlyfield.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)