Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28375725›Full record

ReviewAnnual review of clinical psychology2017

Memory Reconsolidation Interference as an Emerging Treatment for Emotional Disorders: Strengths, Limitations, Challenges, and Opportunities.

Tom Beckers, Merel Kindt

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annual review of clinical psychology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
11.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

65 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 176 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

5 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Tom BeckersDepartment of Psychology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium 3000; email: tom.beckers@kuleuven.be.
Merel KindtDepartment of Clinical Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands 1018WT; email: m.kindt@uva.nl.
KU Leuven · BEUniversity of Amsterdam · NL

Funding

European Research Council 648176
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Experimental research on emotional memory reconsolidation interference, or the induction of amnesia for previously established emotional memory, has a long tradition, but the potential of that research for the development of novel interventions to treat psychological disorders has been recognized only recently. Here we provide an overview of basic research and clinical studies on emotional memory reconsolidation interference. We point out specific advantages of interventions based on memory reconsolidation interference over traditional treatment for emotional disorders. We also explain how findings from basic research suggest limitations and challenges to clinical translation that may help to understand why clinical trials have met with mixed success so far and how their success can be increased. In closing, we preview new intervention approaches beyond the induction of amnesia that the phenomenon of memory reconsolidation may afford for alleviating the burden imposed by emotional memories and comment on theoretical controversies regarding the nature of memory reconsolidation.

Indexed as

Affective SymptomsAnxiety DisordersConditioning, PsychologicalHumansMemory ConsolidationStress Disorders, Post-Traumaticaddictionamnesiaanxietyemotional memoryPTSDreconsolidation

Identifiers

PMID28375725
PMCPMC5424072
OpenAlexW2404442074

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.