7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Functional MRS studies of GABA and glutamate/Glx - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Functional magnetic resonance spectroscopy (fMRS) can be used to investigate neurometabolic responses to external stimuli in-vivo, but findings are inconsistent. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on fMRS studies of the primary neurotransmitters Glutamate (Glu), Glx (Glutamate + Glutamine), and GABA. Data were extracted, grouped by metabolite, stimulus domain, and brain region, and analysed by determining standardized effect sizes. The quality of individual studies was rated. When results were analysed by metabolite type small to moderate effect sizes of 0.29-0.47 (p < 0.05) were observed for changes in Glu and Glx regardless of stimulus domain and brain region, but no significant effects were observed for GABA. Further analysis suggests that Glu, Glx and GABA responses differ by stimulus domain or task and vary depending on the time course of stimulation and data acquisition. Here, we establish effect sizes and directionality of GABA, Glu and Glx response in fMRS. This work highlights the importance of standardised reporting and minimal best practice for fMRS research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references179

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

              Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Neurosci Biobehav Rev
                Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews
                Elsevier BV
                1873-7528
                0149-7634
                Jan 2023
                : 144
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, London SE5 8AB, United Kingdom; Department of Radiologic Technology, Faculty of Associated Medical Sciences, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand.
                [2 ] Department of Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, London SE5 8AB, United Kingdom.
                [3 ] Cognitive Neuroscience Unit, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Locked Bag 20000, Geelong, Victoria 3220, Australia; Centre for Human Psychopharmacology, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia.
                [4 ] F.M. Kirby Research Center for Functional Brain Imaging, Kennedy Krieger Institute, 700. N. Broadway, 21207 Baltimore, United States; Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 601 N. Wolfe Street, 21205 Baltimore, United States.
                [5 ] Department of Neuroimaging, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, London SE5 8AB, United Kingdom.
                [6 ] Department of Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, London SE5 8AB, United Kingdom; MRC Centre for Neurodevelopmental Disorders, New Hunt's House, Guy's Campus, King's College London, London, SE1 1UL London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: nicolaas.puts@kcl.ac.uk.
                Article
                NIHMS1862658 S0149-7634(22)00429-8
                10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104940
                9846867
                36332780
                597f434a-1925-49b7-9806-c1f6d8d878f2
                History

                Review,FMRS,Functional magnetic resonance spectroscopy,GABA,Glutamate,Glx,Meta-analysis,Systematic

                Comments

                Comment on this article