SynthesisPloS one2020
Exploring the utility of RDoC in differentiating effectiveness amongst antidepressants: A systematic review using proposed psychometrics as the unit of analysis for the Negative Valence Systems domain.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical staging and profiling of affective disorders.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026Review
- New Antidepressant Development in the Treatment of Depression.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026Review
- The Utility of Research Domain Criteria in Diagnosis and Management of Dual Disorders: A Mini-Review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Review
- [Twelve years of research domain criteria in psychiatric research and practice: claim and reality].Der Nervenarzt · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRDoC conceptualises psychopathology as neurobiologically-rooted behavioural psychological "constructs" that span dimensionally from normality to pathology, but its clinical utility remains controversial.
aimTo explore RDoC's potential clinical utility by examining antidepressant effectiveness through Negative Valence Systems (NVS) domain constructs.
methodA systematic review was conducted on Web of Science, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO for antidepressant trials that included psychometric instruments assessed by Watson, Stanton & Clark (2017) to represent NVS constructs of Acute Threat, Potential Threat and Loss.
results221 citations were identified; 13 were included in qualitative synthesis, none for quantitative analysis. All suffered from significant bias risks. 9 antidepressants were investigated, most within 1 construct, and most were found to be effective. Paroxetine, citalopram and fluvoxamine were found to be effective for Acute Threat, fluoxetine, desvenlafaxine and sertraline for Potential Threat, and sertraline, fluvoxamine, fluoxetine and desvenlafaxine effective for Loss. Nefazodone was found to be ineffective for acute fear.
conclusionPreliminary evidence supports RDoC NVS constructs' clinical utility in assessing antidepressant effectiveness, but lack of discriminant validity between Potential Threat and Loss supports their recombination into a single Distress construct. Finding of effectiveness within "normal" construct levels support the utility of a dimensional approach. Testable hypotheses were generated that can further test RDoC's clinical utility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.