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

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 references 179

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

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

Matthew J L Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick Bossuyt … (2025)

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.

0 comments Cited 14572 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

Julian P. T. Higgins, Simon Thompson, Jonathan Deeks … (2003)

0 comments Cited 10294 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

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

Adrian Aldcroft, Chantelle Garritty, Simon Lewin … (2018)

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.