4.7 Review

Peripheral oxytocin and vasopressin: Biomarkers of psychiatric disorders? A comprehensive systematic review and preliminary meta-analysis

期刊

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH
卷 241, 期 -, 页码 207-220

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2016.04.117

关键词

Psychosis; Autism spectrum disorder; Bipolar disorder; Major depressive disorder; Obsessive-compulsive disorder; Anorexia nervosa; Bulimia nervosa

资金

  1. ESRC fellowship [ES/K009400/1]
  2. NARSAD Young Investigator Award
  3. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/K009400/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. ESRC [ES/K009400/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A large array of studies have investigated peripheral oxytocin (OT) and vasopressin (ADH) as potential biomarkers of psychiatric disorders, with highly conflicting and heterogenous findings. We searched Web of KnowledgeSM and Scopus (R) for English original articles investigating OT and/or ADH levels in different biological fluids (plasma/serum, saliva, urine and cerebrospinal fluid) across several psychiatric disorders. Sixty-four studies were included. We conducted 19 preliminary meta-analyses addressing OT alterations in plasma/serum, saliva, urine and cerebrospinal fluid of 7 psychiatric disorders and ADH alterations in plasma/serum, saliva, urine and cerebrospinal fluid of 6 psychiatric disorders compared to controls. Hedge's g was used as effect size measure, together with heterogeneity analyses, test of publication biases and quality control. None of them (except serum OT in anorexia nervosa) revealed significant differences. There is no convincing evidence that peripheral ADH or OT might be reliable biomarkers in psychiatric disorders. However, the lack of significant results was associated with high methodological heterogeneity, low quality of the studies, small sample size, and scarce reliability of the methods used in previous studies, which need to be validated and standardized. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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