Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33220110›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2021

Reexamination of diathesis stress and neurotoxic stress theories: A qualitative review of pre-trauma neurobiology in relation to posttraumatic stress symptoms.

Michael S Scheeringa

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Michael S ScheeringaDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5775-313X
Tulane University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAssociations of neurobiological differences with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have generated interest in their temporal relation. Support has been voiced for the neurotoxic stress theory (NST) in which neurobiological differences develop following exposure and PTSD development. In contrast, the diathesis stress theory (DST) posits that neurobiological differences existed prior to exposure and may be vulnerability factors for PTSD. Studies in the first wave of neurobiological PTSD research were all cross sectional, but a second wave of research followed which used prospective repeated-measures designs that measured neurobiology prior to trauma exposure experiences, allowing greater causal inference.

methodsThis study reviewed the second-wave studies in hopes of developing a preliminary consensus to support either the NST or the DST based on this more powerful prospective, repeated-measures study design.

resultsTwenty-five second-wave studies were located that measured neurobiology prior to traumatic experiences. Nineteen studies supported the DST. Of 10 studies that were capable of testing the NST, only 3 were supportive.

conclusionThe implications of the NST versus the DST have profound implications for understanding the fragility of the human brain and possible paths forward for future research on assessment, treatment, and social policy.

Indexed as

Stress Disorders, Post-TraumaticCross-Sectional StudiesDisease SusceptibilityHumansNeurobiologyProspective Studiesdiathesis stressneurobiologyposttraumatic stress disorderqualitative reviewtoxic stress

Identifiers

PMID33220110
PMCPMC8170571
OpenAlexW3107197602

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.