4.4 Article

Carbon dioxide in the study of panic disorder: issues of definition, methodology, and outcome

Journal

JOURNAL OF ANXIETY DISORDERS
Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages 1-32

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0887-6185(02)00181-0

Keywords

panic disorder; carbon dioxide challenge; respiration; anxiety disorder

Funding

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [T32MH017069] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON ALCOHOL ABUSE AND ALCOHOLISM [R29AA009871] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NIAAA NIH HHS [R29-AA09871] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIMH NIH HHS [MH-17069] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The carbon dioxide (CO2) challenge paradigm has been useful for modeling panic in the laboratory. While showing promise as a technique able to promote a better understanding of the etiology of panic disorder (PD), this goal has been impeded by the lack of standardization of the challenge methodology and by uncertainty concerning the optimal definition and assessment of laboratory panic. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the impact of method variance on laboratory findings and to present recommendations for future challenge research. We begin by reviewing studies that have employed CO2 as a stimulus for panic provocation focusing on the status of key methodological parameters between the studies and the relationship of these parameters to findings. We then make pragmatic and theoretically-based recommendations concerning approaches to methodological standardization, the establishment of a valid laboratory panic definition and the desirability of using of additional outcome measures. We conclude that although further work is needed to improve the CO2 challenge laboratory model of panic, this paradigm can play an important role in understanding the psychopathology of PD. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available