Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36311493›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2022

Subjective reward processing and catechol-

Nico Rohlfing, Udo Bonnet, Indira Tendolkar, Anke Hinney, Norbert Scherbaum

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2022. 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. Review
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

5 authors.

Nico RohlfingDepartment of Addictive Behaviour and Addiction Medicine, LVR-Hospital Essen, Hospital of the University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Udo BonnetDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, LVR-Hospital Essen, Hospital of the University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Indira TendolkarDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Centre for Medical Neuroscience, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Anke HinneyDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Norbert ScherbaumDepartment of Addictive Behaviour and Addiction Medicine, LVR-Hospital Essen, Hospital of the University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) approach seeks to understand mental functioning in continuous valid dimensions ranging from functional to pathological. Reward processing is a transdiagnostic functioning domain of the RDoC. Due to prototypical abnormalities, addictions are especially applicable for the investigation of reward processing. Subjective reward processing is challenging to determine and differs between genotypes of the catechol-

Indexed as

COMT Val158Met polymorphismgain expectancyinsularesearch domain criteriasubjective reward processing

Identifiers

PMID36311493
PMCPMC9613938

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.