ArticleJournal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996)2019
Covariation bias in depression - a predictor of treatment response?
Article in Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Deep phenotyping as a contribution to personalized depression therapy: the GEParD and DaCFail protocols.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Covariation bias, defined as an overestimation of the relationship between fear-relevant stimuli and aversive consequences, is a well-investigated cognitive bias in anxiety disorders. As patients with affective disorders also show biased information processing, the aim of the present study was to investigate whether depressed patients also display a covariation bias between negative stimuli and aversive consequences. Covariation estimates of 62 inpatients with a current severe depressive episode were assessed at admission (n = 31) or after 6 weeks of treatment (n = 31) and were compared in a between-group design with 31 age- and sex-matched healthy controls. All participants showed a covariation bias for the relationship between negative stimuli and aversive consequences. Moreover, covariation bias at admission was significantly associated with various clinician- and self-reported dimensional measures of treatment response assessed 6 weeks later (Global Assessment of Functioning, Clinical Global Impression Scale, and Beck Depression Inventory), i.e., patients with a stronger bias showed greater impairment after 6 weeks of treatment. Categorical analyses revealed that overall, treatment non-responders-but not responders-were characterized by a covariation bias. The naturalistic study design without standardized pharmacological and psychotherapeutic treatments is a central limitation. We conclude that the covariation bias may constitute a possible marker in the field of emotional information processing in the search for effective predictors of therapy outcome.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31630255What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.