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
The carbon dioxide (CO(2)) challenge paradigm has been useful for modeling panic in
the laboratory. While showing promise as a technique able to promote a better understanding
of the etiology of panic disorder (PD), this goal has been impeded by the lack of
standardization of the challenge methodology and by uncertainty concerning the optimal
definition and assessment of laboratory panic. The purpose of this paper is to highlight
the impact of method variance on laboratory findings and to present recommendations
for future challenge research. We begin by reviewing studies that have employed CO(2)
as a stimulus for panic provocation focusing on the status of key methodological parameters
between the studies and the relationship of these parameters to findings. We then
make pragmatic and theoretically-based recommendations concerning approaches to methodological
standardization, the establishment of a valid laboratory panic definition and the
desirability of using of additional outcome measures. We conclude that although further
work is needed to improve the CO(2) challenge laboratory model of panic, this paradigm
can play an important role in understanding the psychopathology of PD.