Why knowing healthy controls matters

Pavletic, Adriana J.

doi:10.1111/ijcp.13424

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A special type of a control group are healthy participants; they are not always considered to be an actual control group (e.g., in Thibault et al (2018) ) since they perform the same task and receive actual feedback and therefore merely serve as a comparison group, but are nevertheless included in the present review for completeness. Although they pose a question of defining what exactly is a healthy participant ( Marchesini et al, 2017 , Pavletic, 2020 ) and may not in itself control for any clinical neurofeedback effects, they still do provide essential information regarding the “ideal/healthy” response or performance of the task or, in other words, confirm the effectiveness of the protocol. This is indeed important during the initial, feasibility stages of studies in order to verify that the task can be performed (e.g., the region can be controlled), but it becomes unnecessary in the later stages of trials.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of fMRI neurofeedback reporting and effects in clinical populations

Tursic

Eck

Lührs

et al. 2020

NeuroImage: Clinical

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of fMRI neurofeedback reporting and effects in clinical populations

Tursic

Eck

Lührs

et al. 2020

NeuroImage: Clinical

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…We speculated that such differences in rates could be related to the instruments used or to the way in which the cases and controls were recruited. For example, it has been argued that reliance on self-reports and non-use of objective measures may affect the quality of healthy controls 38 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disordered gambling among people with psychotic disorders: a systematic review

Sankaranarayanan,

Ramanathan,

Mathew

et al. 2024

Schizophr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Disorders of gambling are more common among the mentally ill, including in people with psychotic disorders. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the literature regarding the prevalence and correlates of gambling disorders in people with psychotic disorders. We systematically reviewed English-language literature through searches of six bibliographic databases, all run on 11 November 2022: Medline ALL, Embase, Emcare, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library. Observational studies that reported the prevalence of gambling in psychotic disorders or psychosis among gamblers were included. Studies were critically appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools. Sixteen studies, including 1,116,103 participants, from across a range of settings, were included. Most studies were done on males and recruited participants with a mean age of 40 years. Most of the studies (n = 12) were cross-sectional, and the remaining were case control in design. Most of the studies rated fair in quality. The prevalence of gambling among psychotic population ranged from 0.32 to 19.3%, with the majority of the studies reporting rates between 6.4 and 17%. The rates were 5–25 times higher than in the general population. While there were no consistent associations found with socio-demographic indices, several studies reported an association between gambling behaviours and substance use disorder among those with psychotic illnesses. Our research suggests that clinicians should assess for comorbid gambling among those with psychotic illness, particularly in those with mood symptoms, impulsivity, and substance use disorders. Gambling can negatively impact on their financial and social situations. Future research should study specific strategies or therapies among those with comorbid gambling and psychotic disorders.

show abstract

“…Naturally, the majority of the literature on MSWS-12 and MSIS-29 is for pwMS. However, it is necessary to take into account the variability in values on these PROMs within the general population [ 16 ]. Variability in MSWS-12 and MSIS-29 in people without MS (pwoMS) would indicate that medical conditions other than MS can influence scores on these PROMs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variability of Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale and Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale Scores in People Without Multiple Sclerosis

Binshalan,

Buckley,

Nair

et al. 2024

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Many people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) experience problems with mobility at some point in their disease course. The Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS) and Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale (MSWS) are validated patient-reported outcome measures of physical impairment in pwMS. The range of scores on MSIS and MSWS in people without MS (pwoMS) are not well understood. Methods People over the age of 16 who did not have a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) were invited to complete an online survey consisting of a general health questionnaire, MSIS and the MSWS. Scores for MSIS and MSWS from pwoMS were compared to those from a cohort of 35 pwMS from a previous study. Scores for MSIS and MSWS were correlated with age, sex and comorbidities in pwoMS. Results One hundred eighty-nine ambulant pwoMS were recruited (52.5% female), aged over 16 years of age. Ninety-nine percent reported no difficulty with walking, 89.4% were non-smokers, and 14% had a physical co-morbidity. None used a walking aid. For pwoMS, the MSIS score was a mean of 39.14±13.75 (range 29-127), compared to a mean of 77.2±24.94 (range 40-126) for pwMS. For pwoMS, the mean MSWS score was 8.46±16.2 (0-87) compared to a mean of 56.9±28.9 (4-100) for pwMS. There was no significant effect of sex or smoking on MSIS or MSWS scores in pwoMS. Presence of a physical co-morbidity was associated with significantly higher MSIS and MSWS scores in pwoMS. There was a significant correlation of increasing age with increasing MSWS score in pwoMS but no correlation of age with MSIS score. Conclusion There is a wide range of MSWS and MSIS scores in pwoMS. The age and presence of comorbidities influence both MSWS and MSIS scores. Our findings have implications for the selection of control groups for clinical studies in pwMS.

show abstract

Why knowing healthy controls matters

Cited by 5 publications

References 6 publications

A systematic review of fMRI neurofeedback reporting and effects in clinical populations

A systematic review of fMRI neurofeedback reporting and effects in clinical populations

Disordered gambling among people with psychotic disorders: a systematic review

Variability of Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale and Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale Scores in People Without Multiple Sclerosis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About