4.7 Article

Altered resting-state functional activity in posttraumatic stress disorder: A quantitative meta-analysis

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep27131

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation [81000605, 81371536, 81220108013]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong [S20120200-10867]
  3. Sichuan province science and technology plan project [2015HH0036]
  4. Program for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University of China (PCSIRT) [IRT1272]
  5. Changjiang Scholar Professorship Award [T2014190]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many functional neuroimaging studies have reported differential patterns of spontaneous brain activity in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but the findings are inconsistent and have not so far been quantitatively reviewed. The present study set out to determine consistent, specific regional brain activity alterations in PTSD, using the Effect Size Signed Differential Mapping technique to conduct a quantitative meta-analysis of resting-state functional neuroimaging studies of PTSD that used either a non-trauma (NTC) or a trauma-exposed (TEC) comparison control group. Fifteen functional neuroimaging studies were included, comparing 286 PTSDs, 203 TECs and 155 NTCs. Compared with NTC, PTSD patients showed hyperactivity in the right anterior insula and bilateral cerebellum, and hypoactivity in the dorsal medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC); compared with TEC, PTSD showed hyperactivity in the ventral mPFC. The pooled meta-analysis showed hypoactivity in the posterior insula, superior temporal, and Heschl's gyrus in PTSD. Additionally, subgroup meta-analysis (non-medicated subjects vs. NTC) identified abnormal activation in the prefrontal-limbic system. In meta-regression analyses, mean illness duration was positively associated with activity in the right cerebellum (PTSD vs. NTC), and illness severity was negatively associated with activity in the right lingual gyrus (PTSD vs. TEC).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据