Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29371024›Full record

ArticleEuropean neuropsychopharmacology : the journal of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology2018

From neuroscience to evidence based psychological treatments - The promise and the challenge, ECNP March 2016, Nice, France.

Guy M Goodwin, Emily A Holmes, Erik Andersson, Michael Browning, Andrew Jones, Johanna Lass-Hennemann, Kristoffer Nt Månsson, Carolin Moessnang, Elske Salemink, Alvaro Sanchez and 2 more

Abstract readConference Proceedings
In one paragraph

Article in European neuropsychopharmacology : the journal of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Of mice and mental health: facilitating dialogue and seeing further.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2018
    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

12 authors.

Guy M GoodwinUniversity Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford and Oxford Health NHS Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford OX3 7JX, UK.
Emily A HolmesDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, SE-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.
Erik AnderssonDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, SE-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.
Michael BrowningUniversity Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford and Oxford Health NHS Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford OX3 7JX, UK.
Andrew JonesPsychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Bedford St South, Liverpool L697ZA, UK.
Johanna Lass-HennemannDivision of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Department of Psychology, Saarland University, D- 66123 Saarbrucken, Germany.
Kristoffer Nt MånssonDepartment of Psychology, Stockholm University, SE-106 91, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, SE-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, SE-75105, Uppsala, Sweden.
Carolin MoessnangCentral Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim/Heidelberg University, J5, 68159 Mannheim, Germany.
Elske SaleminkDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 129B, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Alvaro SanchezGhent University, Department of Experimental Clinical and Health Psychology, Henri Dunantlaan 2, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium.
Linda van ZutphenDepartment of Clinical Psychological Science, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Universiteitssingel 40; 6229 ER, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Renée M VisserMedical Research Council Cognition & Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, 15 Chaucer Road, Cambridge CB2 7EF, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/N008103/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This ECNP meeting was designed to build bridges between different constituencies of mental illness treatment researchers from a range of backgrounds with a specific focus on enhancing the development of novel, evidence based, psychological treatments. In particular we wished to explore the potential for basic neuroscience to support the development of more effective psychological treatments, just as this approach is starting to illuminate the actions of drugs. To fulfil this aim, a selection of clinical psychologists, psychiatrists and neuroscientists were invited to sit at the same table. The starting point of the meeting was the proposition that we know certain psychological treatments work, but we have only an approximate understanding of why they work. The first task in developing a coherent mental health science would therefore be to uncover the mechanisms (at all levels of analysis) of effective psychological treatments. Delineating these mechanisms, a task that will require input from both the clinic and the laboratory, will provide a key foundation for the rational optimisation of psychological treatments. As reviewed in this paper, the speakers at the meeting reviewed recent advances in the understanding of clinical and cognitive psychology, neuroscience, experimental psychopathology, and treatment delivery technology focussed primarily on anxiety disorders and depression. We started by asking three rhetorical questions: What has psychology done for treatment? What has technology done for psychology? What has neuroscience done for psychology? We then addressed how research in five broad research areas could inform the future development of better treatments: Attention, Conditioning, Compulsions and addiction, Emotional Memory, and Reward and emotional bias. Research in all these areas (and more) can be harnessed to neuroscience since psychological therapies are a learning process with a biological basis in the brain. Because current treatment approaches are not fully satisfactory, there is an imperative to understand why not. And when psychological therapies do work we need to understand why this is the case, and how we can improve them. We may be able to improve accessibility to treatment without understanding mechanisms. But for treatment innovation and improvement, mechanistic insights may actually help. Applying neuroscience in this way will become an additional mission for ECNP.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based PracticePsychotherapyTranslational Research, BiomedicalAnimalsFranceHumansNeurosciencesAnxietyCognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT)Fear conditioningNeuroscienceResearch Domain Criteria (RDoC)

Identifiers

PMID29371024
PMCPMC5861996

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.