Network models of posttraumatic stress disorder: A meta-analysis.

IF 4.6 1区 心理学 Q1 Medicine
Adela-Maria Isvoranu, Sacha Epskamp, Mike W-L Cheung
{"title":"Network models of posttraumatic stress disorder: A meta-analysis.","authors":"Adela-Maria Isvoranu,&nbsp;Sacha Epskamp,&nbsp;Mike W-L Cheung","doi":"10.1037/abn0000704","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) researchers have increasingly used psychological network models to investigate PTSD symptom interactions, as well as to identify central driver symptoms. It is unclear, however, how generalizable such results are. We have developed a meta-analytic framework for aggregating network studies while taking between-study heterogeneity into account and applied this framework in the first-ever meta-analytic study of PTSD symptom networks. We analyzed the correlational structures of 52 different samples with a total sample size of n = 29,561 and estimated a single pooled network model underlying the data sets, investigated the scope of between-study heterogeneity, and assessed the performance of network models estimated from single studies. Our main findings are that: (a) We identified large between-study heterogeneity, indicating that it should be expected for networks of single studies to not perfectly align with one-another, and meta-analytic approaches are vital for the study of PTSD networks. (b) While several clear symptom-links, interpretable clusters, and significant differences between strength of edges and centrality of nodes can be identified in the network, no single or small set of nodes that clearly played a more central role than other nodes could be pinpointed, except for the symptom \"amnesia\" that was clearly the least central symptom. (c) Despite large between-study heterogeneity, we found that network models estimated from single samples can lead to similar network structures as the pooled network model. We discuss the implications of these findings for both the PTSD literature as well as methodological literature on network psychometrics. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":14793,"journal":{"name":"Journal of abnormal psychology","volume":"130 8","pages":"841-861"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of abnormal psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000704","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) researchers have increasingly used psychological network models to investigate PTSD symptom interactions, as well as to identify central driver symptoms. It is unclear, however, how generalizable such results are. We have developed a meta-analytic framework for aggregating network studies while taking between-study heterogeneity into account and applied this framework in the first-ever meta-analytic study of PTSD symptom networks. We analyzed the correlational structures of 52 different samples with a total sample size of n = 29,561 and estimated a single pooled network model underlying the data sets, investigated the scope of between-study heterogeneity, and assessed the performance of network models estimated from single studies. Our main findings are that: (a) We identified large between-study heterogeneity, indicating that it should be expected for networks of single studies to not perfectly align with one-another, and meta-analytic approaches are vital for the study of PTSD networks. (b) While several clear symptom-links, interpretable clusters, and significant differences between strength of edges and centrality of nodes can be identified in the network, no single or small set of nodes that clearly played a more central role than other nodes could be pinpointed, except for the symptom "amnesia" that was clearly the least central symptom. (c) Despite large between-study heterogeneity, we found that network models estimated from single samples can lead to similar network structures as the pooled network model. We discuss the implications of these findings for both the PTSD literature as well as methodological literature on network psychometrics. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

创伤后应激障碍的网络模型:荟萃分析。
创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)研究人员越来越多地使用心理网络模型来研究PTSD症状的相互作用,以及识别中心驱动症状。然而,目前尚不清楚这些结果有多普遍。我们开发了一个综合网络研究的元分析框架,同时考虑了研究间的异质性,并将该框架应用于首次PTSD症状网络的元分析研究。我们分析了52个不同样本的相关结构,总样本量为n = 29,561,并估计了数据集背后的单一汇集网络模型,调查了研究间异质性的范围,并评估了从单个研究中估计的网络模型的性能。我们的主要发现是:(a)我们发现了很大的研究间异质性,这表明单个研究的网络之间并不完全一致,元分析方法对于PTSD网络的研究至关重要。(b)虽然可以在网络中识别出几个明确的症状链接、可解释的集群以及边缘强度和节点中心性之间的显著差异,但除了“失忆”症状显然是最不重要的症状外,没有一个或一小组节点明显比其他节点发挥更重要的作用。(c)尽管研究之间存在很大的异质性,但我们发现,从单个样本估计的网络模型可以导致与池化网络模型相似的网络结构。我们将讨论这些发现对PTSD文献以及网络心理测量学方法学文献的影响。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Journal of Abnormal Psychology® publishes articles on basic research and theory in the broad field of abnormal behavior, its determinants, and its correlates. The following general topics fall within its area of major focus: - psychopathology—its etiology, development, symptomatology, and course; - normal processes in abnormal individuals; - pathological or atypical features of the behavior of normal persons; - experimental studies, with human or animal subjects, relating to disordered emotional behavior or pathology; - sociocultural effects on pathological processes, including the influence of gender and ethnicity; and - tests of hypotheses from psychological theories that relate to abnormal behavior.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信