4.7 Review

The correlation between central and peripheral oxytocin concentrations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS
卷 78, 期 -, 页码 117-124

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.04.017

关键词

Oxytocin; Meta-analysis; Blood plasma; Central concentrations

资金

  1. Research Council of Norway (RCN)
  2. Cooperative Research Centre for Living with Autism (Autism CRC)
  3. Australian Government's Cooperative Research Centres Program
  4. BIA project [219483]
  5. South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority [2014097]
  6. Novo Nordisk Foundation [NNF16OC0019856]
  7. Novo Nordisk Fonden [NNF16OC0019856] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is growing interest in the role of the oxytocin system in social cognition and behavior. Peripheral oxytocin concentrations are regularly used to approximate central concentrations in psychiatric research, however, the validity of this approach is unclear. Here we conducted a pre-registered systematic search and meta-analysis of correlations between central and peripheral oxytocin concentrations. A search of databases yielded 17 eligible studies, resulting in a total sample size of 516 participants and subjects. Overall, a positive association between central and peripheral oxytocin concentrations was revealed [r = 0.29, 95% CI (0.14, 0.42), p < 0.0001]. This association was moderated by experimental context [Q(b)(4), p = 0.003]. While no association was observed under basal conditions (r = 0.08, p = 0.31), significant associations were observed after intranasal oxytocin administration (r = 0.66, p < 0.0001), and after experimentally induced stress (r = 0.49, p = 0.001). These results indicate a coordination of central and peripheral oxytocin release after stress and after intranasal administration. Although popular, the approach of using peripheral oxytocin levels to approximate central levels under basal conditions is not supported by the present results.

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