Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29043151›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of psychiatry2017

Biobehavioral assessment of the anxiety disorders: Current progress and future directions.

Deah Abbott, Yasmin Shirali, J Kyle Haws, Caleb W Lack

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of psychiatry, 2017. 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
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Deah AbbottDepartment of Psychology, University of Central Oklahoma, Edmond, OK 73134, United States.
Yasmin ShiraliDepartment of Psychology, University of Central Oklahoma, Edmond, OK 73134, United States.
J Kyle HawsDepartment of Psychology, University of Central Oklahoma, Edmond, OK 73134, United States.
Caleb W LackDepartment of Psychology, University of Central Oklahoma, Edmond, OK 73134, United States. clack@uco.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is difficult to accurately assess and differentially diagnose the anxiety disorders. The current system of assessment relies heavily on the subjective measures of client self-report, clinical observation, and clinical judgment. Fortunately, recent technological advances may enable practitioners to utilize objective, biobehavioral measures of assessment in a clinical setting. The current body of literature on two of these biobehavioral tools (eye-tracking and electrocardiogram devices) is promising, but more validation and standardization research is needed to maximize the utility of these devices. Eye-tracking devices are uniquely capable of providing data that can be used to differentially diagnose anxiety disorders from both other commonly comorbid and misdiagnosed disorders. Both eye-tracking and electrocardiogram devices are able to provide change-sensitive assessment information. This objective, real-time feedback can assist clinicians and researchers in assessing treatment efficacy and symptom fluctuation. Recently developed wearable and highly portable electrocardiogram devices, like the wearable fitness and behavior tracking devices used by many consumers, may be particularly suited for providing this feedback to clinicians. Utilizing these biobehavioral devices would supply an objective, dimensional component to the current categorical diagnostic assessment system. We posit that if adequate funding and attention are directed at this area of research, it could revolutionize diagnostic and on-going assessment practices and, in doing so, bring the field of diagnosis out of the 20th century.

Indexed as

AnxietyAssessmentBiobehavioralDiagnosisElectrocardiogramEye-tracker

Identifiers

PMID29043151
PMCPMC5632598

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.