SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2022
A systematic review of the pharmacological modulation of autobiographical memory specificity.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Imaging the cerebellum in post-traumatic stress and anxiety disorders: a mini-review.Frontiers in systems neuroscience · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Over-general autobiographical memory (AM) retrieval is proposed to have a causal role in the maintenance of psychological disorders like depression and PTSD. As such, the identification of drugs that modulate AM specificity may open up new avenues of research on pharmacological modeling and treatment of psychological disorders. Aim: The current review summarizes randomized, placebo-controlled studies of acute pharmacological modulation of AM specificity. Method: A systematic search was conducted of studies that examined the acute effects of pharmacological interventions on AM specificity in human volunteers (healthy and clinical participants) measured using the Autobiographical Memory Test. Results: Seventeen studies were identified (986 total participants), of which 16 were judged to have low risk of bias. The presence and direction of effects varied across drugs and diagnostic status of participants (clinical vs. healthy volunteers). The most commonly studied drug-hydrocortisone-produced an overall Conclusion: Pharmacological enhancement of AM specificity is inconsistent, although monaminergic modulators show little promise in this regard. Drugs that reduce AM specificity in healthy volunteers may be useful experimental-pharmacological tools that mimic an important transdiagnostic impairment in psychological disorders. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO, identifier CRD42020199076, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020199076.
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.