Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25765144›Full record

Trial reportJournal of psychiatric research2015

Evaluating psychological interventions in a novel experimental human model of anxiety.

Ben Ainsworth, Jemma E Marshall, Daniel Meron, David S Baldwin, Paul Chadwick, Marcus R Munafò, Matthew Garner

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of psychiatric research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Ben AinsworthSchool of Psychology, University of Southampton, UK. Electronic address: ben.ainsworth@soton.ac.uk.
Jemma E MarshallSchool of Psychology, University of Southampton, UK.
Daniel MeronClinical and Experimental Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, UK.
David S BaldwinClinical and Experimental Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, UK.
Paul ChadwickDepartment of Psychology, King's College London, UK.
Marcus R MunafòMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit (IEU), The University of Bristol, UK; UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies and School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, UK.
Matthew GarnerSchool of Psychology, University of Southampton, UK; Clinical and Experimental Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, UK. Electronic address: m.j.garner@soton.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council ES/H018514Medical Research Council MC_UU_12013/6Medical Research Council MR/J011754/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Inhalation of 7.5% carbon dioxide increases anxiety and autonomic arousal and provides a novel experimental model of anxiety with which to evaluate pharmacological and psychological treatments for anxiety. To date several psychotropic drugs including benzodiazepines, SSRIs and SNRIs have been evaluated using the 7.5% CO2 model; however, it has yet to be used to evaluate psychological interventions. We compared the effects of two core psychological components of mindfulness-meditation (open monitoring and focused attention) against general relaxation, on subjective, autonomic and neuropsychological outcomes in the 7.5% CO2 experimental model. 32 healthy screened adults were randomized to complete 10 min of guided open monitoring, focused attention or relaxation, immediately before inhaling 7.5% CO2 for 20 min. During CO2-challenge participants completed an eye-tracking measure of attention control and selective attention. Measures of subjective anxiety, blood pressure and heart rate were taken at baseline and immediately following intervention and CO2-challenge. OM and FA practice reduced subjective feelings of anxiety during 20-min inhalation of 7.5% CO2 compared to relaxation control. OM practice produced a strong anxiolytic effect, whereas the effect of FA was more modest. Anxiolytic OM and FA effects occurred in the absence of group differences in autonomic arousal and eye-movement measures of attention. Our findings are consistent with neuropsychological models of mindfulness-meditation that propose OM and FA activate prefrontal mechanisms that support emotion regulation during periods of anxiety and physiological hyper-arousal. Our findings complement those from pharmacological treatment studies, further supporting the use of CO2 challenge to evaluate future therapeutic interventions for anxiety.

Indexed as

AnxietyMeditationMindfulnessAdministration, InhalationAdultAnalysis of VarianceBlood PressureCarbon DioxideFemaleHeart RateHumansMaleTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultCarbon DioxideAnxietyAttentionExperimental medicineMindfulness

Identifiers

PMID25765144
PMCPMC4406751

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.