Progress in neuro-psychopharmacology & biological psychiatry · 2019
The P300 in alcohol use disorder: A meta-analysis and meta-regression.
СтатьяМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hamidovic Ajna, Wang Yohyoh
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The P300 ERP component is a marker of reduced capacity in alcohol use disorder (AUD) to engage attentional mechanisms and update memory representations. No meta-analysis to date has been completed comparing effect size estimates of auditory vs. visual stimuli in AUD. In addition, there is a lack of consensus on whether the P3b in women is reduced, or whether the P3a - an earlier, more frontally distributed component - is reduced in AUD.
METHODS: Strict inclusion criteria and data-analysis plans were implemented. Eligible studies needed to diagnose AUD using DSM or ICD-10 and exclude patients with any psychiatric co-morbidities. Data analysis was completed using a refined variance estimator of the random effects model.
RESULTS: Effect size estimates were large for both auditory (Hedges' g = 1.01, p = .056) and visual (Hedges' g = 0.77, p = .040) P300 amplitudes, but only marginally significant for the auditory modality. Auditory P300 latency was significantly increased in AUD patients (Hedges' g = 0.73, p = .027). The moderator analysis did not show significant sex differences for either auditory (p = .97) or visual (p = .45) P3b. Finally, the P3a was not reduced in patients with AUD (Hedges' g = 1.01; p = .59).
CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis clarifies important questions related to P300 in AUD. By resolving inconsistencies, it is hoped that this information will facilitate the design of futurestudies.
METHODS: Strict inclusion criteria and data-analysis plans were implemented. Eligible studies needed to diagnose AUD using DSM or ICD-10 and exclude patients with any psychiatric co-morbidities. Data analysis was completed using a refined variance estimator of the random effects model.
RESULTS: Effect size estimates were large for both auditory (Hedges' g = 1.01, p = .056) and visual (Hedges' g = 0.77, p = .040) P300 amplitudes, but only marginally significant for the auditory modality. Auditory P300 latency was significantly increased in AUD patients (Hedges' g = 0.73, p = .027). The moderator analysis did not show significant sex differences for either auditory (p = .97) or visual (p = .45) P3b. Finally, the P3a was not reduced in patients with AUD (Hedges' g = 1.01; p = .59).
CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis clarifies important questions related to P300 in AUD. By resolving inconsistencies, it is hoped that this information will facilitate the design of futurestudies.