更新和修正的荟萃分析显示,心得安与安慰剂对创伤性记忆再巩固中断没有影响。

IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES
Serge A Steenen, Roos van Westrhenen, Jan de Lange, Ad de Jongh
{"title":"更新和修正的荟萃分析显示,心得安与安慰剂对创伤性记忆再巩固中断没有影响。","authors":"Serge A Steenen, Roos van Westrhenen, Jan de Lange, Ad de Jongh","doi":"10.1503/jpn.220072-l","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A recent meta-analysis published in JPN, and new data on administration of propranolol to patients with psychotrauma-related conditions, raise a number of concerns that we would like to share with the readers. Pigeon and colleagues1 performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of therapeutic approaches based on reconsolidation interference theory, in the hope for a paradigm shift in the treatment of mental disorders that have an emotional memory at their core. The authors included 14 experimental studies in healthy adults and 12 randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials (RCTs). A pooled analysis of the included clinical trials showed that, compared with placebo, reconsolidation impairment under propranolol alleviated psychiatric symptoms and reduced cue-elicited reactivity (g = −0.42, p = 0.01). Accordingly, the authors concluded that propranolol’s clinical use is promising and deserves further controlled investigation.1 We argue that Pigeon and colleagues’ results and conclusions are affected by limitations in methodology and that their conclusions are incorrect in the context of propranolol’s effects on psychotrauma-related symptomatology. First, although the authors assessed publication bias and searched for unpublished work,1 they seem to have missed 3 unpublished trials that may have increased the risk of publication bias.2 These 3 trials were identified on ClincalTrials.gov (NCT00645450, NCT01055171) and Google Scholar (W81XWH-08–1-0491) in a very recent and highly similar meta-analysis involving posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) studies specifically.3 Second, the authors failed to report risk of bias summary figures (Figure 1), and in their pooled analysis of clinical studies they included 2 trials in which physiologic response, instead of clinical symptom severity, was the primary outcome measure. Third, 5 studies involving substance dependence and abuse were included, disorders which, in the context of emotional memory, clearly have mechanistically different etiologies from disorders related to psychological trauma.48 To ensure that the value of propranolol for the health care field has been estimated correctly, we re-analyzed the data on which Pigeon and colleagues based their conclusions. We found that, if their pooled analysis of clinical studies had been restricted to low-risk-of-bias RCTs into psychotrauma-related symptomatology,56 the pooled analysis would have shown that propranolol was not statistically significantly superior to placebo (Figure 1). Moreover, if the pooled analysis is supplemented with missed and new trials,6,79,10 the 95 % confidence interval of the pooled mean difference is even wider (Figure 2). The current state of affairs in the field of clinical application of propranolol for trauma-related conditions, such as posttraumatic stress disorder, does not fully support the notion that use of propranolol in the impairment of traumatic","PeriodicalId":50073,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience","volume":"47 5","pages":"E336-E337"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/b4/6e/47-5-E336.PMC9640173.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Updated and rectified meta-analysis shows no effect of propranolol versus placebo on traumatic memory reconsolidation disruption.\",\"authors\":\"Serge A Steenen, Roos van Westrhenen, Jan de Lange, Ad de Jongh\",\"doi\":\"10.1503/jpn.220072-l\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A recent meta-analysis published in JPN, and new data on administration of propranolol to patients with psychotrauma-related conditions, raise a number of concerns that we would like to share with the readers. Pigeon and colleagues1 performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of therapeutic approaches based on reconsolidation interference theory, in the hope for a paradigm shift in the treatment of mental disorders that have an emotional memory at their core. The authors included 14 experimental studies in healthy adults and 12 randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials (RCTs). A pooled analysis of the included clinical trials showed that, compared with placebo, reconsolidation impairment under propranolol alleviated psychiatric symptoms and reduced cue-elicited reactivity (g = −0.42, p = 0.01). Accordingly, the authors concluded that propranolol’s clinical use is promising and deserves further controlled investigation.1 We argue that Pigeon and colleagues’ results and conclusions are affected by limitations in methodology and that their conclusions are incorrect in the context of propranolol’s effects on psychotrauma-related symptomatology. First, although the authors assessed publication bias and searched for unpublished work,1 they seem to have missed 3 unpublished trials that may have increased the risk of publication bias.2 These 3 trials were identified on ClincalTrials.gov (NCT00645450, NCT01055171) and Google Scholar (W81XWH-08–1-0491) in a very recent and highly similar meta-analysis involving posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) studies specifically.3 Second, the authors failed to report risk of bias summary figures (Figure 1), and in their pooled analysis of clinical studies they included 2 trials in which physiologic response, instead of clinical symptom severity, was the primary outcome measure. Third, 5 studies involving substance dependence and abuse were included, disorders which, in the context of emotional memory, clearly have mechanistically different etiologies from disorders related to psychological trauma.48 To ensure that the value of propranolol for the health care field has been estimated correctly, we re-analyzed the data on which Pigeon and colleagues based their conclusions. We found that, if their pooled analysis of clinical studies had been restricted to low-risk-of-bias RCTs into psychotrauma-related symptomatology,56 the pooled analysis would have shown that propranolol was not statistically significantly superior to placebo (Figure 1). Moreover, if the pooled analysis is supplemented with missed and new trials,6,79,10 the 95 % confidence interval of the pooled mean difference is even wider (Figure 2). The current state of affairs in the field of clinical application of propranolol for trauma-related conditions, such as posttraumatic stress disorder, does not fully support the notion that use of propranolol in the impairment of traumatic\",\"PeriodicalId\":50073,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience\",\"volume\":\"47 5\",\"pages\":\"E336-E337\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/b4/6e/47-5-E336.PMC9640173.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1503/jpn.220072-l\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1503/jpn.220072-l","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Updated and rectified meta-analysis shows no effect of propranolol versus placebo on traumatic memory reconsolidation disruption.

Updated and rectified meta-analysis shows no effect of propranolol versus placebo on traumatic memory reconsolidation disruption.

Updated and rectified meta-analysis shows no effect of propranolol versus placebo on traumatic memory reconsolidation disruption.
A recent meta-analysis published in JPN, and new data on administration of propranolol to patients with psychotrauma-related conditions, raise a number of concerns that we would like to share with the readers. Pigeon and colleagues1 performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of therapeutic approaches based on reconsolidation interference theory, in the hope for a paradigm shift in the treatment of mental disorders that have an emotional memory at their core. The authors included 14 experimental studies in healthy adults and 12 randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials (RCTs). A pooled analysis of the included clinical trials showed that, compared with placebo, reconsolidation impairment under propranolol alleviated psychiatric symptoms and reduced cue-elicited reactivity (g = −0.42, p = 0.01). Accordingly, the authors concluded that propranolol’s clinical use is promising and deserves further controlled investigation.1 We argue that Pigeon and colleagues’ results and conclusions are affected by limitations in methodology and that their conclusions are incorrect in the context of propranolol’s effects on psychotrauma-related symptomatology. First, although the authors assessed publication bias and searched for unpublished work,1 they seem to have missed 3 unpublished trials that may have increased the risk of publication bias.2 These 3 trials were identified on ClincalTrials.gov (NCT00645450, NCT01055171) and Google Scholar (W81XWH-08–1-0491) in a very recent and highly similar meta-analysis involving posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) studies specifically.3 Second, the authors failed to report risk of bias summary figures (Figure 1), and in their pooled analysis of clinical studies they included 2 trials in which physiologic response, instead of clinical symptom severity, was the primary outcome measure. Third, 5 studies involving substance dependence and abuse were included, disorders which, in the context of emotional memory, clearly have mechanistically different etiologies from disorders related to psychological trauma.48 To ensure that the value of propranolol for the health care field has been estimated correctly, we re-analyzed the data on which Pigeon and colleagues based their conclusions. We found that, if their pooled analysis of clinical studies had been restricted to low-risk-of-bias RCTs into psychotrauma-related symptomatology,56 the pooled analysis would have shown that propranolol was not statistically significantly superior to placebo (Figure 1). Moreover, if the pooled analysis is supplemented with missed and new trials,6,79,10 the 95 % confidence interval of the pooled mean difference is even wider (Figure 2). The current state of affairs in the field of clinical application of propranolol for trauma-related conditions, such as posttraumatic stress disorder, does not fully support the notion that use of propranolol in the impairment of traumatic
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
2.30%
发文量
51
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience publishes papers at the intersection of psychiatry and neuroscience that advance our understanding of the neural mechanisms involved in the etiology and treatment of psychiatric disorders. This includes studies on patients with psychiatric disorders, healthy humans, and experimental animals as well as studies in vitro. Original research articles, including clinical trials with a mechanistic component, and review papers will be considered.
×
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