Objective An association between bipolar disorder and cognitive impairment has repeatedly been described, even for euthymic patients. Findings are inconsistent both across primary studies and previous meta‐analyses. This study reanalysed 31 primary data sets as a single large sample (N = 2876) to provide a more definitive view. Method Individual patient and control data were obtained from original authors for 11 measures from four common neuropsychological tests: California or Rey Verbal Learning Task (VLT), Trail Making Test (TMT), Digit Span and/or Wisconsin Card Sorting Task. Results Impairments were found for all 11 test‐measures in the bipolar group after controlling for age, IQ and gender (Ps ≤ 0.001, E.S. = 0.26–0.63). Residual mood symptoms confound this result but cannot account for the effect sizes found. Impairments also seem unrelated to drug treatment. Some test‐measures were weakly correlated with illness severity measures suggesting that some impairments may track illness progression. Conclusion This reanalysis supports VLT, Digit Span and TMT as robust measures of cognitive impairments in bipolar disorder patients. The heterogeneity of some test results explains previous differences in meta‐analyses. Better controlling for confounds suggests deficits may be smaller than previously reported but should be tracked longitudinally across illness progression and treatment.

A model of staging in the field of bipolar disorder (BD) should offer a means for clinicians to predict response to treatment and more general outcome measures, such as the level of functioning and autonomy. The present staging model emphasizes the assessment of patients in the interepisodic period and includes: latent phase: individuals who present mood and anxiety symptoms and increased risk for developing threshold BD; Stage I--patients with BD who present well established periods of euthymia and absence of overt psychiatric morbidity between episodes; Stage II--patients who present rapid cycling or current axis I or II comorbidities; Stage III--patients who present a clinically relevant pattern of cognitive and functioning deterioration, as well as altered biomarkers; and Stage IV--patients who are unable to live autonomously and present altered brain scans and biomarkers. Such a model implies a longitudinal appraisal of clinical variables, as well as assessment of neurocognition and biomarkers in the interepisodic period. Staging facilitates understanding of the mechanisms underlying progression of the disorder, assists in treatment planning and prognosis and, finally, underscores the imperative for early intervention.

Most studies to date indicate that globally defined late-stage patients have a worse overall prognosis and poorer response to standard treatment, consistent with patterns for end-stage medical disorders. We believe it is possible at this juncture to speak broadly of 'early'- and 'late'-stage bipolar disorder. Next steps require further collaborative efforts to consider the details of preillness onset and intermediary stages, and how many additional stages are optimal.