Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26877121›Full record

ArticlePsychophysiology2016

Taking an RDoC lens to the study of panic disorder: A commentary on Hamm et al. and other thoughts on RDoC.

Stewart A Shankman, Andrea C Katz, Scott A Langenecker

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stewart A ShankmanDepartment of Psychology and Psychiatry, University of Illinois-Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Andrea C KatzDepartment of Psychology and Psychiatry, University of Illinois-Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Scott A LangeneckerDepartment of Psychology and Psychiatry, University of Illinois-Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
University of Illinois Chicago · US

Funding

Family Study of Reward and Threat Sensitivity in Internalizing PsychopathologyR01MH098093 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI SHANKMAN, STEWART AARON · 2012 to 2015
$2.7M
Dimensional RDoC Modeling across the Range of Negative Mood DysfunctionR01MH101487 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI LANGENECKER, SCOTT A · 2013 to 2016
$2.5M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH098093NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH101487
6 · The paper itself

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

National Institute of Mental Health (U.S.)Panic DisorderAnimalsHumansResearchThinkingAgoraphobiaNegative valence systemPanic disorderResearch Domain Criteria

Identifiers

PMID26877121
PMCPMC4843838
OpenAlexW2412269245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.