Anyone knows the difference between BD Depressive epidode with pshychosis and Schizoaffective disorder?

[Meylis Delano Lawrence]

Does anybody know the difference between Bipolar disorder Depressive epidode with pshychosis and Schizoaffective disorder? Or are they the same thing? If one is experiencing BP depressive episode with psychosis can we say one is schizoaffective. If not, how can one distinguish the two?
P.S I heard schizoaffective disorder is one of the hardest to diagnose.

[Annik]

Schizo-effective disorder is schizophrenia plus mood disorder (usually it's depression). Bipolar is not schizophrenia, I doubt you're schizo-effective.

[Psykhronic]

You'd need to outline your psychotic symptoms and bipolar symptoms and have a psychiatrist evaluate them. None of us can really do that for you.

I still do not have a conclusive diagnosis and I have a mood disorder with psychotic symptoms. That's as far as I know. But I still found help even without anything conclusive.

[Meylis Delano Lawrence]

Thanks everybody for replies. Just want to let you know that I found the answers here:

Source 1: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2646642/

Source 2: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/BipolarScre...id=4360216

[Annik]

It's weird, one of my professors was just talking about schizoaffective disorder just yesterday. She was telling us about the kids she worked with who were schizoaffective and mentally retarded. ): But don't worry. Schizophrenia is much different than bipolar (which can be handled much more easily). Just take your meds when you're supposed to take them. If you don't like how they make you feel, don't stop them. Go to your doctor and ask for a change. You'll get it (if you don't and the doc doesn't give you a good answer like it's the only one that will work, ect, then find a new doctor).

[Angrboda]

I haven't finished reading the first article, but I want to get my thoughts out before I forget them.

This first article seems to engage in a lot of pointless axe grinding, and the impetus behind it may very well bias their conclusions.

For example, in the etiology section, they note that the literature seems to indicate that schizoaffective disorder is as prevalent as schizophrenia and less prevalent than the affective disorders. Yet later in the same paragraph they argue that if the co-morbidity approach is used (dimensionally separating the thought and emotional regulation symptoms), then the prevalence would be a function of the conjunction of the probability of the two occurring separately, which they claim is exactly what the data to date indicates (despite having claimed otherwise a few sentences back).

Also, their analysis of the reliability of diagnosis question is similarly flawed. Whether the etiology of schizoaffective disorder is or is not independent of either schizophrenia or affective disorders, the diagnostic criteria used for the identification of schizoaffective disorder is the conjunction of the diagnostic criteria of both, and therefore will show much more serious regression toward the mean than the diagnosis of either schizophrenia or mood disorder independently. Thus, from the statistical effects alone, the diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder should be expected to be less consistent than either of these disorders. Blithely assuming that this regression reflects support for their chosen framework is an evident example of confirmation bias.

I'm not going to go into any great depth in analyzing their points as it appears that their conclusions rest more firmly on ideological commitments and a skewed and selective sampling of the data than it does on scientific soundness and clinical utility. This latter being an important question, as if the two "dimensions" of schizoaffective disorder are indeed, at best, weakly linked, as they seem to be implying, separating out the true effects for the purposes of treatment is likely harmless, and may in some ways be helpful. However, if the etiologies of the two dimensions in schizoaffective disorder are in fact related, then focusing on the co-morbidity or dimensional approach creates a black hole which sucks up and destroys any data which might point to that common or interdependent etiology. If you assume the two are separate, you blind yourself to any clues to their connectedness.

Anyway, as noted, I still have reading to do on it. Interesting article, nonetheless, even though I suspect its authors' biases have strongly skewed their conclusions and their selection of facts.