A methodological checklist for fMRI drug cue reactivity studies: development and expert consensus

Publikation: Beitrag in FachzeitschriftÜbersichtsartikel (Review)BeigetragenBegutachtung

Beitragende

  • Hamed Ekhtiari - , Laureate Institute for Brain Research, University of Minnesota System (Autor:in)
  • Mehran Zare-Bidoky - , Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences (Autor:in)
  • Arshiya Sangchooli - , Tehran University of Medical Sciences (Autor:in)
  • Amy C. Janes - , Harvard University (Autor:in)
  • Marc J. Kaufman - , Harvard University (Autor:in)
  • Jason A. Oliver - , Duke University, Stephenson Cancer Center, Oklahoma State University (Autor:in)
  • James J. Prisciandaro - , Medical University of South Carolina (Autor:in)
  • Torsten Wüstenberg - , Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (Autor:in)
  • Raymond F. Anton - , Medical University of South Carolina (Autor:in)
  • Patrick Bach - , Universität Heidelberg (Autor:in)
  • Alex Baldacchino - , University of St Andrews (Autor:in)
  • Anne Beck - , Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, HMU Health and Medical University (Autor:in)
  • James M. Bjork - , Virginia Commonwealth University (Autor:in)
  • Judson Brewer - , Brown University (Autor:in)
  • Anna Rose Childress - , University of Pennsylvania (Autor:in)
  • Eric D. Claus - , Pennsylvania State University (Autor:in)
  • Kelly E. Courtney - , University of California at San Diego (Autor:in)
  • Mohsen Ebrahimi - , Tehran University of Medical Sciences (Autor:in)
  • Francesca M. Filbey - , University of Texas at Dallas (Autor:in)
  • Dara G. Ghahremani - , University of California at Los Angeles (Autor:in)
  • Peyman Ghobadi Azbari - , Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Shahed University (Autor:in)
  • Rita Z. Goldstein - , Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (Autor:in)
  • Anna E. Goudriaan - , Amsterdam University Medical Centers (UMC) (Autor:in)
  • Erica N. Grodin - , University of California at Los Angeles (Autor:in)
  • J. Paul Hamilton - , Linköping University (Autor:in)
  • Colleen A. Hanlon - , Wake Forest University (Autor:in)
  • Peyman Hassani-Abharian - , Institute for Cognitive Science Studies (Autor:in)
  • Andreas Heinz - , Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (Autor:in)
  • Jane E. Joseph - , Medical University of South Carolina (Autor:in)
  • Falk Kiefer - , Universität Heidelberg (Autor:in)
  • Arash Khojasteh Zonoozi - , Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences (Autor:in)
  • Hedy Kober - , Yale University (Autor:in)
  • Rayus Kuplicki - , Laureate Institute for Brain Research (Autor:in)
  • Qiang Li - , Fourth Military Medical University (Autor:in)
  • Edythe D. London - , University of California at Los Angeles (Autor:in)
  • Joseph McClernon - , Duke University (Autor:in)
  • Hamid R. Noori - , Center for Excellence in Brain Science and Intelligence Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) (Autor:in)
  • Max M. Owens - , University of Vermont (Autor:in)
  • Martin P. Paulus - , Laureate Institute for Brain Research (Autor:in)
  • Irene Perini - , Linköping University (Autor:in)
  • Marc Potenza - , Yale University, Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling (Autor:in)
  • Stéphane Potvin - , University of Montreal (Autor:in)
  • Lara Ray - , University of California at Los Angeles (Autor:in)
  • Joseph P. Schacht - , University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus (Autor:in)
  • Dongju Seo - , Yale University (Autor:in)
  • Rajita Sinha - , Yale University (Autor:in)
  • Michael N. Smolka - , Klinik und Poliklinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie (Autor:in)
  • Rainer Spanagel - , Zentralinstitut für Seelische Gesundheit (ZI) (Autor:in)
  • Vaughn R. Steele - , Yale University (Autor:in)
  • Elliot A. Stein - , National Institutes of Health (NIH) (Autor:in)
  • Sabine Steins-Loeber - , University of Bamberg (Autor:in)
  • Susan F. Tapert - , University of California at San Diego (Autor:in)
  • Antonio Verdejo-Garcia - , Monash University (Autor:in)
  • Sabine Vollstädt-Klein - , Universität Heidelberg (Autor:in)
  • Reagan R. Wetherill - , University of Pennsylvania (Autor:in)
  • Stephen J. Wilson - , Pennsylvania State University (Autor:in)
  • Katie Witkiewitz - , University of New Mexico (Autor:in)
  • Kai Yuan - , Xidian University (Autor:in)
  • Xiaochu Zhang - , University of Science and Technology of China (USTC) (Autor:in)
  • Anna Zilverstand - , University of Minnesota System (Autor:in)

Abstract

Cue reactivity is one of the most frequently used paradigms in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies of substance use disorders (SUDs). Although there have been promising results elucidating the neurocognitive mechanisms of SUDs and SUD treatments, the interpretability and reproducibility of these studies is limited by incomplete reporting of participants’ characteristics, task design, craving assessment, scanning preparation and analysis decisions in fMRI drug cue reactivity (FDCR) experiments. This hampers clinical translation, not least because systematic review and meta-analysis of published work are difficult. This consensus paper and Delphi study aims to outline the important methodological aspects of FDCR research, present structured recommendations for more comprehensive methods reporting and review the FDCR literature to assess the reporting of items that are deemed important. Forty-five FDCR scientists from around the world participated in this study. First, an initial checklist of items deemed important in FDCR studies was developed by several members of the Enhanced NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta-Analyses (ENIGMA) Addiction working group on the basis of a systematic review. Using a modified Delphi consensus method, all experts were asked to comment on, revise or add items to the initial checklist, and then to rate the importance of each item in subsequent rounds. The reporting status of the items in the final checklist was investigated in 108 recently published FDCR studies identified through a systematic review. By the final round, 38 items reached the consensus threshold and were classified under seven major categories: ‘Participants’ Characteristics’, ‘General fMRI Information’, ‘General Task Information’, ‘Cue Information’, ‘Craving Assessment Inside Scanner’, ‘Craving Assessment Outside Scanner’ and ‘Pre- and Post-Scanning Considerations’. The review of the 108 FDCR papers revealed significant gaps in the reporting of the items considered important by the experts. For instance, whereas items in the ‘General fMRI Information’ category were reported in 90.5% of the reviewed papers, items in the ‘Pre- and Post-Scanning Considerations’ category were reported by only 44.7% of reviewed FDCR studies. Considering the notable and sometimes unexpected gaps in the reporting of items deemed to be important by experts in any FDCR study, the protocols could benefit from the adoption of reporting standards. This checklist, a living document to be updated as the field and its methods advance, can help improve experimental design, reporting and the widespread understanding of the FDCR protocols. This checklist can also provide a sample for developing consensus statements for protocols in other areas of task-based fMRI.

Details

OriginalspracheEnglisch
Seiten (von - bis)567-595
Seitenumfang29
FachzeitschriftNature protocols
Jahrgang17
Ausgabenummer3
PublikationsstatusVeröffentlicht - März 2022
Peer-Review-StatusJa

Externe IDs

PubMed 35121856
ORCID /0000-0001-5398-5569/work/161409054

Schlagworte