2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.05.011
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Baseline autonomic nervous system activity in female children and adolescents with conduct disorder: Psychophysiological findings from the FemNAT-CD study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
29
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 87 publications
1
29
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Contrary to our expectations, within the multi-problem group we found no associations between any of the psychophysiological measurements and their psychopathic traits and aggressive behavior. This is at odds with previous studies(e.g., Latvala et al, 2015;Murray et al, 2016), although other recent studies also failed to find significant associations (Oldenhof et al, 2018;Prätzlich et al, 2018). Additionally, specifically the relationship between low resting heart rate and antisocial behavior has been weakening over the years of research (Portnoy and Farrington, 2015).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Contrary to our expectations, within the multi-problem group we found no associations between any of the psychophysiological measurements and their psychopathic traits and aggressive behavior. This is at odds with previous studies(e.g., Latvala et al, 2015;Murray et al, 2016), although other recent studies also failed to find significant associations (Oldenhof et al, 2018;Prätzlich et al, 2018). Additionally, specifically the relationship between low resting heart rate and antisocial behavior has been weakening over the years of research (Portnoy and Farrington, 2015).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Heart rate variability was indexed by respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA): the difference between the longest inter-beat interval during expiration and the shortest during inspiration (Thayer et al, 2012 ). The pre-ejection period (PEP) was defined as the interval between the start of left ventricular depolarization (q-wave onset in the ECG) and opening of the aortic valve (b-point in the ICG) (Oldenhof et al, 2018 ; Van Lien et al, 2013 ). HR is a measure of general autonomic activity, and results from the interaction between the PNS and SNS.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…VU-DAMS (v4.0) algorithms were used for ECG/ICG scoring. All data were checked manually for ECG-abnormalities: missing R-peaks were added, premature ventricular contractions and premature atrial contractions were removed and B-point identification was checked for each averaged ICG complex (Oldenhof et al, 2018 ). RSA was specified as missing if >50% of the respiration signal was identified as irregular by the algorithm.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1 PRISMA Flow Diagram * Papers were predominantly excluded for review purposes because CU measures were not used to assess the DSM-5 specifier symptoms. Other reasons were, for example, the use of CU measures that only enable to assess three of the four LPE specifier criteria (Colins 2016;Colins and Vermeiren 2013;Jambroes et al 2016), the lack of formal comparison of CD + LPE with CD Only youth (McMahon et al 2010), or lack of information about the assessment procedure followed to determine a CD diagnosis (Pechorro et al 2015); ** Two papers were identified after checking the references Sakai et al 2017), whilst three papers were identified by advance online publication explorations (Byrd et al 2018;Sethi et al 2018;Oldenhof et al 2018); *** Three of the five aforementioned potentially relevant papers were not included for review purposes because no measures of CD were used (Byrd et al 2018), and because youth who did not met criteria for CD also enrolled in the study whilst analyses were not run separately for youth with a CD diagnosis (Oldenhof et al 2018;Sakai et al 2017); **** Two papers used largely overlapping samples (Colins et al 2017;Van Damme et al 2016), but focused on a different research question, and therefore added significant incremental information to the review. Consequently, both papers were included for review purposes but will be treated as one and the same study magnitude of the significant group differences.…”
Section: Data-extraction and Data-analysismentioning
confidence: 99%