ArticlePsychophysiology2016
Taking an RDoC lens to the study of panic disorder: A commentary on Hamm et al. and other thoughts on RDoC.
Article in Psychophysiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using a cultural and RDoC framework to conceptualize anxiety in Asian Americans.Journal of anxiety disorders · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative put forth by the National Institute of Mental Health represents an exciting new framework in which to study psychopathology. The article by Hamm et al. (2016) is an interesting application of an "RDoC lens" toward a program of research on panic disorder. This commentary highlights the many strengths of the Hamm et al. (2016) study-most notably the article's application of a well-studied animal model of anxiety (Fanselow's, , threat imminence model) to humans, utilization of an interesting behavioral paradigm (as an analog for avoidance behaviors in panic disorder), and using RDoC to examine predictors of treatment response. This commentary also discusses several questions about RDoC that arise out of Hamm et al. For example, (a) How should participants be selected for RDoC studies? (b) Are RDoC constructs risk factors (and risk factors for what)? (c) Besides Hamm et al.'s, approach, how else can RDoC be used in treatment studies? In sum, Hamm et al. is a very good example of an RDoC study, and in this early phase of the initiative, more examples for how the approach plays out are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.