Dataset Information

Pharmacological manipulations of judgement bias: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Validated measures of animal affect are crucial to research spanning numerous disciplines. Judgement bias, which assesses decision-making under ambiguity, is a promising measure of animal affect. One way of validating this measure is to administer drugs with affect-altering properties in humans to non-human animals and determine whether the predicted judgement biases are observed. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using data from 20 published research articles that use this approach, from which 557 effect sizes were extracted. Pharmacological manipulations overall altered judgement bias at the probe cues as predicted. However, there were several moderating factors including the neurobiological target of the drug, whether the drug induced a relatively positive or negative affective state in humans, dosage, and the presented cue. This may partially reflect interference from adverse effects of the drug which should be considered when interpreting results. Thus, the overall pattern of change in animal judgement bias appears to reflect the affect-altering properties of drugs in humans, and hence may be a valuable measure of animal affective valence.

SUBMITTER: Neville V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6966323 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pharmacological manipulations of judgement bias: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Neville Vikki V Nakagawa Shinichi S Zidar Josefina J Paul Elizabeth S ES Lagisz Malgorzata M Bateson Melissa M Løvlie Hanne H Mendl Michael M

Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews 20191117

Validated measures of animal affect are crucial to research spanning numerous disciplines. Judgement bias, which assesses decision-making under ambiguity, is a promising measure of animal affect. One way of validating this measure is to administer drugs with affect-altering properties in humans to non-human animals and determine whether the predicted judgement biases are observed. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using data from 20 published research articles that use this appr ...[more]

PMID: 31747552

Similar Datasets

Project description:Various financial and non-financial conflicts of interests have been shown to influence the reporting of research findings, particularly in clinical medicine. In this study, we examine whether this extends to prognostic instruments designed to assess violence risk. Such instruments have increasingly become a routine part of clinical practice in mental health and criminal justice settings. The present meta-analysis investigated whether an authorship effect exists in the violence risk assessment literature by comparing predictive accuracy outcomes in studies where the individuals who designed these instruments were study authors with independent investigations. A systematic search from 1966 to 2011 was conducted using PsycINFO, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and US National Criminal Justice Reference Service Abstracts to identify predictive validity studies for the nine most commonly used risk assessment tools. Tabular data from 83 studies comprising 104 samples was collected, information on two-thirds of which was received directly from study authors for the review. Random effects subgroup analysis and metaregression were used to explore evidence of an authorship effect. We found a substantial and statistically significant authorship effect. Overall, studies authored by tool designers reported predictive validity findings around two times higher those of investigations reported by independent authors (DOR=6.22 [95% CI=4.68-8.26] in designers' studies vs. DOR=3.08 [95% CI=2.45-3.88] in independent studies). As there was evidence of an authorship effect, we also examined disclosure rates. None of the 25 studies where tool designers or translators were also study authors published a conflict of interest statement to that effect, despite a number of journals requiring that potential conflicts be disclosed. The field of risk assessment would benefit from routine disclosure and registration of research studies. The extent to which similar conflict of interests exists in those developing risk assessment guidelines and providing expert testimony needs clarification.

Project description:BackgroundBorderline personality disorder (BPD) is a debilitating psychiatric disorder that affects 0.4-3.9% of the population in Western countries. Currently, no medications have been approved by regulatory agencies for the treatment of BPD. Nevertheless, up to 96% of patients with BPD receive at least one psychotropic medication.ObjectivesThe objective of this systematic review was to assess the general efficacy and the comparative effectiveness of different pharmacological treatments for BPD patients.MethodsWe conducted systematic literature searches limited to English language in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO up to April 6, 2021, and searched reference lists of pertinent articles and reviews. Inclusion criteria were (i) patients 13 years or older with a diagnosis of BPD, (ii) treatment with anticonvulsive medications, antidepressants, antipsychotic medications, benzodiazepines, melatonin, opioid agonists or antagonists, or sedative or hypnotic medications for at least 8 weeks, (iii) comparison with placebo or an eligible medication, (iv) assessment of health-relevant outcomes, (v) randomized or non-randomized trials or controlled observational studies. Two investigators independently screened abstracts and full-text articles and graded the certainty of evidence based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. For meta-analyses, we used restricted maximum likelihood random effects models to estimate pooled effects.ResultsOf 12,062 unique records, we included 21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with data on 1768 participants. Nineteen RCTs compared pharmacotherapies with placebo; two RCTs assessed active treatments head-to-head. Out of 87 medications in use in clinical practice, we found studies on just nine. Overall, the evidence indicates that the efficacy of pharmacotherapies for the treatment of BPD is limited. Second-generation antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, and antidepressants were not able to consistently reduce the severity of BPD. Low-certainty evidence indicates that anticonvulsants can improve specific symptoms associated with BPD such as anger, aggression, and affective lability but the evidence is mostly limited to single studies. Second-generation antipsychotics had little effect on the severity of specific BPD symptoms, but they improved general psychiatric symptoms in patients with BPD.ConclusionsDespite the common use of pharmacotherapies for patients with BPD, the available evidence does not support the efficacy of pharmacotherapies alone to reduce the severity of BPD.RegistrationPROSPERO registration number, CRD42020194098.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough meta-analyses have shown that placebo responses are large in Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) trials; the placebo response of devices such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has not been systematically assessed. We proposed to assess placebo responses in two categories of MDD trials: pharmacological (antidepressant drugs) and non-pharmacological (device- rTMS) trials.Methodology/principal findingsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature from April 2002 to April 2008, searching MEDLINE, Cochrane, Scielo and CRISP electronic databases and reference lists from retrieved studies and conference abstracts. We used the keywords placebo and depression and escitalopram for pharmacological studies; and transcranial magnetic stimulation and depression and sham for non-pharmacological studies. All randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel articles on major depressive disorder were included. Forty-one studies met our inclusion criteria - 29 in the rTMS arm and 12 in the escitalopram arm. We extracted the mean and standard values of depression scores in the placebo group of each study. Then, we calculated the pooled effect size for escitalopram and rTMS arm separately, using Cohen's d as the measure of effect size. We found that placebo response are large for both escitalopram (Cohen's d - random-effects model - 1.48; 95%C.I. 1.26 to 1.6) and rTMS studies (0.82; 95%C.I. 0.63 to 1). Exploratory analyses show that sham response is associated with refractoriness and with the use of rTMS as an add-on therapy, but not with age, gender and sham method utilized.Conclusions/significanceWe confirmed that placebo response in MDD is large regardless of the intervention and is associated with depression refractoriness and treatment combination (add-on rTMS studies). The magnitude of the placebo response seems to be related with study population and study design rather than the intervention itself.

Dataset Information

Pharmacological manipulations of judgement bias: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Pharmacological manipulations of judgement bias: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets