SynthesisPsychological medicine2026
Investigation of habenula volume in mood disorders: A meta-analytic study.
Synthesis in Psychological medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Investigation of habenula volume in mood disorders: A meta-analytic study - CORRIGENDUM.Psychological medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The habenula, a small brain structure involved in processing aversive stimuli, has been strongly implicated in the pathophysiology of mood disorders. While diminutions in hippocampal and medial prefrontal cortex volume have been demonstrated in individuals with a mood disorder, evidence for structural alterations in the habenula remains inconsistent. This set of meta-analyses examines whether individuals with a mood disorder show alterations in habenula volume compared to healthy controls. We conducted six meta-analyses. Two global analyses compared left and right habenula volumes between individuals with a mood disorder (MDD or BD) and healthy controls (HCs), each including 15 samples (left: 1,230 participants; right: 1,236). Four additional analyses compared MDD versus HCs and BD versus HCs for left and right volumes separately. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses tested the habenula segmentation method, medication status, and MRI resolution as moderators. The global meta-analyses pooling MDD and BD data showed small but significant volume reductions in the left (
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.