Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28045460›Full record

ArticleTranslational psychiatry2017

Neural substrates of cue reactivity and craving in gambling disorder.

E H Limbrick-Oldfield, I Mick, R E Cocks, J McGonigle, S P Sharman, A P Goldstone, P R A Stokes, A Waldman, D Erritzoe, H Bowden-Jones and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational psychiatry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Craving in gambling disorder: A systematic review.Journal of behavioral addictions · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

13 authors.

E H Limbrick-OldfieldCentre for Gambling Research at UBC, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
I MickCentre for Neuropsychopharmacology, Division of Brain Sciences, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
R E CocksDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
J McGonigleCentre for Neuropsychopharmacology, Division of Brain Sciences, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
S P SharmanDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
A P GoldstoneCentre for Neuropsychopharmacology, Division of Brain Sciences, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
P R A StokesCentre for Neuropsychopharmacology, Division of Brain Sciences, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
A WaldmanDivision of Experimental Medicine, Department of Imaging, Imperial College London, London, UK.
D ErritzoeCentre for Neuropsychopharmacology, Division of Brain Sciences, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
H Bowden-JonesNational Problem Gambling Clinic, CNWL NHS Foundation Trust, Imperial College London, London, UK.
D NuttCentre for Neuropsychopharmacology, Division of Brain Sciences, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1286-1401
A Lingford-HughesCentre for Neuropsychopharmacology, Division of Brain Sciences, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
L ClarkCentre for Gambling Research at UBC, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Funding

Medical Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cue reactivity is an established procedure in addictions research for examining the subjective experience and neural basis of craving. This experiment sought to quantify cue-related brain responses in gambling disorder using personally tailored cues in conjunction with subjective craving, as well as a comparison with appetitive non-gambling stimuli. Participants with gambling disorder (n=19) attending treatment and 19 controls viewed personally tailored blocks of gambling-related cues, as well as neutral cues and highly appetitive (food) images during a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scan performed ~2-3 h after a usual meal. fMRI analysis examined cue-related brain activity, cue-related changes in connectivity and associations with block-by-block craving ratings. Craving ratings in the participants with gambling disorder increased following gambling cues compared with non-gambling cues. fMRI analysis revealed group differences in left insula and anterior cingulate cortex, with the gambling disorder group showing greater reactivity to the gambling cues, but no differences to the food cues. In participants with gambling disorder, craving to gamble correlated positively with gambling cue-related activity in the bilateral insula and ventral striatum, and negatively with functional connectivity between the ventral striatum and the medial prefrontal cortex. Gambling cues, but not food cues, elicit increased brain responses in reward-related circuitry in individuals with gambling disorder (compared with controls), providing support for the incentive sensitization theory of addiction. Activity in the insula co-varied with craving intensity, and may be a target for interventions.

Indexed as

CravingCuesAdultBrainCase-Control StudiesCerebral CortexFunctional NeuroimagingGamblingGyrus CinguliHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedMotivationNeural PathwaysPrefrontal Cortex

Identifiers

PMID28045460
PMCPMC5545724

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.