Search

Over the past two decades, research on pediatric bipolar disorder has grown geometrically. The diagnosis of pediatric bipolar disorder was met with enthusiasm, which in healthy doses catalyzed change, and skepticism, which in good measure pushes for rigor. Skepticism led to productive questions about the phenomenology of pediatric bipolar disorder and how best to diagnose and treat it. With regard to prevalence, key questions included whether it was increasing over time, and whether it was limited to the United States. In 2011, we published a meta‐analysis addressing the prevalence questions; results indicated that bipolar disorder manifested at statistically indistinguishable rates in youth community samples across the world. In their recent paper, Parry et al. examine the studies included in the 2011 meta‐analysis using a qualitative approach. Their opinion piece represents a step backwards; every study has shortcomings, but in focusing on a dozen individual studies, Parry et al. fail to take into account the preponderance of evidence – literally thousands of articles across countries, cohorts and methodologies – that support the existence of bipolar disorder in both prepubescent youth and adolescents. This commentary addresses misperceptions regarding the diagnosis of bipolar disorder in youth, particularly with regard to cross‐informant agreement, to present converging data from international sources regarding the onset of bipolar disorder in childhood, and to correct the false claim that pediatric bipolar disorder is controversial. As clinicians and researchers, we have an obligation to do what we can to improve the lives of youth affected by mental illness. Denying the existence of a serious mood disorder will not serve the best interests of young people and will perpetuate the long delays many experience before getting an accurate diagnosis, appropriate treatment, and a fair chance at a good quality of life. Read the Editors' introduction at: doi: 10.1111/camh.12315 Read the core debate at: doi: 10.1111/camh.12231; doi: 10.1111/camh.12243; doi: 10.1111/camh.12306 Read more perspectives in this debate at: doi: 10.1111/camh.12318 doi: 10.1111/camh.12317; doi: 10.1111/camh.12316; doi: 10.1111/camh.12313; doi: 10.1111/camh.12310; doi: 10.1111/camh.12314 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]