Refine
Document Type
- Article (4)
Language
- English (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4) (remove)
Keywords
- Meta-analysis (4) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (2)
- Psychologie (1)
- Psychologie und Sportwissenschaften (1)
Pathophysiological models are urgently needed for personalized treatments of mental disorders. However, most potential neural markers for psychopathology are limited by low interpretability, prohibiting reverse inference from brain measures to clinical symptoms and traits. Neural signatures—i.e. multivariate brain-patterns trained to be both sensitive and specific to a construct of interest—might alleviate this problem, but are rarely applied to mental disorders. We tested whether previously developed neural signatures for negative affect and discrete emotions distinguish between healthy individuals and those with mental disorders characterized by emotion dysregulation, i.e. Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) and complex Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (cPTSD). In three different fMRI studies, a total sample of 192 women (49 BPD, 62 cPTSD, 81 healthy controls) were shown pictures of scenes with negative or neutral content. Based on pathophysiological models, we hypothesized higher negative and lower positive reactivity of neural emotion signatures in participants with emotion dysregulation. The expression of neural signatures differed strongly between neutral and negative pictures (average Cohen's d = 1.17). Nevertheless, a mega-analysis on individual participant data showed no differences in the reactivity of neural signatures between participants with and without emotion dysregulation. Confidence intervals ruled out even small effect sizes in the hypothesized direction and were further supported by Bayes factors. Overall, these results support the validity of neural signatures for emotional states during fMRI tasks, but raise important questions concerning their link to individual differences in emotion dysregulation.
BACKGROUND: Vermeulen et al. 2014 published a meta-regression analysis of three relevant epidemiological US studies (Steenland et al. 1998, Garshick et al. 2012, Silverman et al. 2012) that estimated the association between occupational diesel engine exhaust (DEE) exposure and lung cancer mortality. The DEE exposure was measured as cumulative exposure to estimated respirable elemental carbon in μg/m(3)-years. Vermeulen et al. 2014 found a statistically significant dose-response association and described elevated lung cancer risks even at very low exposures.
METHODS: We performed an extended re-analysis using different modelling approaches (fixed and random effects regression analyses, Greenland/Longnecker method) and explored the impact of varying input data (modified coefficients of Garshick et al. 2012, results from Crump et al. 2015 replacing Silverman et al. 2012, modified analysis of Moehner et al. 2013).
RESULTS: We reproduced the individual and main meta-analytical results of Vermeulen et al. 2014. However, our analysis demonstrated a heterogeneity of the baseline relative risk levels between the three studies. This heterogeneity was reduced after the coefficients of Garshick et al. 2012 were modified while the dose coefficient dropped by an order of magnitude for this study and was far from being significant (P = 0.6). A (non-significant) threshold estimate for the cumulative DEE exposure was found at 150 μg/m(3)-years when extending the meta-analyses of the three studies by hockey-stick regression modelling (including the modified coefficients for Garshick et al. 2012). The data used by Vermeulen and colleagues led to the highest relative risk estimate across all sensitivity analyses performed. The lowest relative risk estimate was found after exclusion of the explorative study by Steenland et al. 1998 in a meta-regression analysis of Garshick et al. 2012 (modified), Silverman et al. 2012 (modified according to Crump et al. 2015) and Möhner et al. 2013. The meta-coefficient was estimated to be about 10-20 % of the main effect estimate in Vermeulen et al. 2014 in this analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of Vermeulen et al. 2014 should not be used without reservations in any risk assessments. This is particularly true for the low end of the exposure scale.
This systematic review investigated how successful children/adolescents with poor literacy skills learn a foreign language compared with their peers with typical literacy skills. Moreover, we explored whether specific characteristics related to participants, foreign language instruction, and assessment moderated scores on foreign language tests in this population. Overall, 16 studies with a total of 968 participants (poor reader/spellers: n = 404; control participants: n = 564) met eligibility criteria. Only studies focusing on English as a foreign language were available. Available data allowed for meta-analyses on 10 different measures of foreign language attainment. In addition to standard mean differences (SMDs), we computed natural logarithms of the ratio of coefficients of variation (CVRs) to capture individual variability between participant groups. Significant between-study heterogeneity, which could not be explained by moderator analyses, limited the interpretation of results. Although children/adolescents with poor literacy skills on average showed lower scores on foreign language phonological awareness, letter knowledge, and reading comprehension measures, their performance varied significantly more than that of control participants. Thus, it remains unclear to what extent group differences between the foreign language scores of children/adolescents with poor and typical literacy skills are representative of individual poor readers/spellers. Taken together, our results indicate that foreign language skills in children/adolescents with poor literacy skills are highly variable. We discuss the limitations of past research that can guide future steps toward a better understanding of individual differences in foreign language attainment of children/adolescents with poor literacy skills.
Background: Unwanted anticholinergic effects are both underestimated and frequently overlooked. Failure to identify adverse drug reactions (ADRs) can lead to prescribing cascades and the unnecessary use of over-thecounter products. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to explore and quantify the frequency and severity of ADRs associated with amitriptyline vs. placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults with any indication, as well as healthy individuals. Methods: A systematic search in six electronic databases, forward/backward searches, manual searches, and searches for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval studies, will be performed. Placebo-controlled RCTs evaluating amitriptyline in any dosage, regardless of indication and without restrictions on the time and language of publication, will be included, as will healthy individuals. Studies of topical amitriptyline, combination therapies, or including <100 participants, will be excluded. Two investigators will screen the studies independently, assess methodological quality, and extract data on design, population, intervention, and outcomes ((non-)anticholinergic ADRs, e.g., symptoms, test results, and adverse drug events (ADEs) such as falls). The primary outcome will be the frequency of anticholinergic ADRs as a binary outcome (absolute number of patients with/without anticholinergic ADRs) in amitriptyline vs. placebo groups. Anticholinergic ADRs will be defined by an experienced clinical pharmacologist, based on literature and data from Martindale: The Complete Drug Reference. Secondary outcomes will be frequency and severity of (non-)anticholinergic ADRs and ADEs. The information will be synthesized in meta-analyses and narratives. We intend to assess heterogeneity using metaregression (for indication, outcome, and time points) and I2 statistics. Binary outcomes will be expressed as odds ratios, and continuous outcomes as standardized mean differences. Effect measures will be provided using 95% confidence intervals. We plan sensitivity analyses to assess methodological quality, outcome reporting etc., and subgroup analyses on age, dosage, and duration of treatment. Discussion: We will quantify the frequency of anticholinergic and other ADRs/ADEs in adults taking amitriptyline for any indication by comparing rates for amitriptyline vs. placebo, hence, preventing bias from disease symptoms and nocebo effects. As no standardized instrument exists to measure it, our overall estimate of anticholinergic ADRs may have limitations.