Literature DB >> 31573729

Why knowing healthy controls matters.

Adriana J Pavletic1.   

Abstract

Although healthy volunteers often serve as controls or primary participants in neuroscience research, they are usually less rigorously screened than patients, which can have far-reaching implications for interpretation of study results. Although this issue has long been recognised, it is rarely discussed in the research literature. This article examines how the rigorous screening and characterisation of healthy volunteers is key for quality research.
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Healthy volunteers; characterisation; controls; neuroscience research; screening

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31573729      PMCID: PMC6980973          DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.13424

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Clin Pract        ISSN: 1368-5031            Impact factor:   3.149


  6 in total

1.  A comment on the selection of 'healthy controls' for psychiatric experiments.

Authors:  R D Gibbons; J M Davis; D R Hedeker
Journal:  Arch Gen Psychiatry       Date:  1990-08

2.  Volunteers for biomedical research. Recruitment and screening of normal controls.

Authors:  D L Shtasel; R E Gur; P D Mozley; J Richards; M M Taleff; C Heimberg; F Gallacher; R C Gur
Journal:  Arch Gen Psychiatry       Date:  1991-11

3.  Safety, Science, or Both? Deceptive Healthy Volunteers: Psychiatric Conditions Uncovered by Objective Methods of Screening.

Authors:  Adriana Pavletic; Maryland Pao
Journal:  Psychosomatics       Date:  2017-05-09       Impact factor: 2.386

4.  Choice of comparison group and findings of computerised tomography in schizophrenia.

Authors:  G N Smith; W G Iacono; M Moreau; K Tallman; M Beiser; B Flak
Journal:  Br J Psychiatry       Date:  1988-11       Impact factor: 9.319

5.  Screening electrocardiograms in psychiatric research: implications for physicians and healthy volunteers.

Authors:  A J Pavletic; M Pao; D S Pine; D A Luckenbaugh; D R Rosing
Journal:  Int J Clin Pract       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  The myth of the normal, average human brain--the ICBM experience: (1) subject screening and eligibility.

Authors:  John C Mazziotta; Roger Woods; Marco Iacoboni; Nancy Sicotte; Kami Yaden; Mary Tran; Courtney Bean; Jonas Kaplan; Arthur W Toga
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2008-08-15       Impact factor: 6.556

  6 in total
  1 in total

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

Authors:  Anita Tursic; Judith Eck; Michael Lührs; David E J Linden; Rainer Goebel
Journal:  Neuroimage Clin       Date:  2020-11-11       Impact factor: 4.881

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.