The article you requested is
Reply to Overdiagnosis and Underdiagnosis of Bipolar Disorder.
J Clin Psychiatry 2009;70(1):145 [letter]
Copyright 2009 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.
To view this item, select one of the options below.
Purchase this PDF for $30
If you are not a paid subscriber, you may purchase the PDF.
(You'll need the free Adobe Acrobat Reader.)
Receive immediate full-text access to JCP. You can subscribe to JCP online-only ($129) or print + online ($166 individual).
If you are a paid subscriber to JCP and do not yet have a username and password, activate your subscription now.
As a paid subscriber who has activated your subscription, you have access to the HTML and PDF versions of this item.
Still can't log in? Contact the Circulation Department at 1-800-489-1001 x4 or send an email
Letter to the Editor
Sir: We wish to thank Drs. Manning and Kane for bringing
to our attention the study by Hirschfeld et al. Their observation
is important: clinical setting will affect the relative rate at which
bipolar disorder is overdiagnosed or underdiagnosed. The study
by Hirschfeld et al., however, raises another variable in this debate
that is seldom discussed but perhaps as important, namely,
the extent to which researchers, in publishing their results, highlight
one set of findings versus another.