Malondialdehyde concentrations in obsessive–compulsive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Background This meta-analysis aimed to investigate serum and plasma malondialdehyde (MDA) levels in patients with obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) in comparison to healthy controls. Methods Following the PRISMA protocol, we searched for the relevant studies through the databases of Scopus, PubMed, Google Scholar, and web of science until September 2019 with no time restriction. Overall, nine studies were included in the current meta-analysis. Data were pooled using a random-effects model; in addition, standard mean difference (SMD) and/or weight mean difference (WMD) was calculated. Cochran’s Q test and I-square (I2) statistics were used to evaluate between-study heterogeneity. The Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Statistical analyses were done using the STATA version 14. Results Our systematic review included nine case–control studies (including 367 cases and 337 controls). Pooling findings from these studies showed a significantly higher MDA level in OCD patient compared to control groups (SMD = 1.62; 95% CI [0.53, 2.72]; I2 = 96.9%; Pheterogeneity (Ph) < 0.001). This finding remained unchanged among studies which reported MDA in the same unit (WMD = 1.93; 95% CI [0.27, 3.59]; I2 = 99.2%; Ph < 0.001). Subgroup analysis by the study location and sample size revealed findings that were also significant. Conclusion We found that MDA levels are higher in OCD patients than healthy controls. This finding highlights the importance of inflammatory responses in OCD patients that should be considered for future investigations. Further studies are recommended to expand current knowledge on this issue.

Download Full-text

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and Decision Making under Ambiguity: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Brain Sciences ◽

10.3390/brainsci11020143 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (2) ◽

pp. 143

Author(s):

Veronica Nisticò ◽

Andrea De Angelis ◽

Roberto Erro ◽

Benedetta Demartini ◽

Lucia Ricciardi

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Decision Making ◽

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder ◽

Clinical Manifestation ◽

Iowa Gambling Task ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Healthy Controls ◽

Gambling Task ◽

Obsessive Compulsive ◽

Compulsive Disorder

In the last decade, decision-making has been proposed to have a central role in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) aetiology, since patients show pathological doubt and an apparent inability to make decisions. Here, we aimed to comprehensively review decision making under ambiguity, as measured by the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), in OCD, using a meta-analytic approach. According to PRISMA Guidelines, we selected 26 studies for a systematic review and, amongst them, 16 studies were included in a meta-analysis, comprising a total of 846 OCD patients and 763 healthy controls (HC). Our results show that OCD patients perform significantly lower than HC at the IGT, pointing towards the direction of a decision making impairment. In particular, this deficit seems to emerge mainly in the last three blocks of the IGT. IGT scores in OCD patients under the age of 18 were still significantly lower than in HC. Finally, no difference emerged between medicated and unmedicated patients, since they both scored significantly lower at the IGT compared to HC. In conclusion, our results are in line with the hypothesis according to which decision making impairment might represent a potential endophenotype lying between the clinical manifestation of OCD and its neurobiological aetiology.

Download Full-text

Mindfulness-based and acceptance-based programmes in the treatment of obsessive–compulsive disorder: a study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050329 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (6) ◽

pp. e050329

Author(s):

Johannes Julian Bürkle ◽

Johannes Caspar Fendel ◽

Stefan Schmidt

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Depressive Symptoms ◽

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Sensitivity Analyses ◽

Secondary Outcome ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Obsessive Compulsive ◽

Compulsive Disorder

IntroductionCognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) with exposure and response prevention is the recommended standard for the treatment of obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD). However, a high proportion of patients refuse this treatment, do not respond or relapse shortly after treatment. Growing evidence suggests that mindfulness-based and acceptance-based programmes (MABPs) are an effective option for the treatment of OCD. This systematic review and meta-analysis will examine the effectiveness of MABPs in treating OCD. We also aimed to explore potential moderators of the programmes’ effectiveness.Methods and analysisWe will systematically search MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, PSYINDEX, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (no language restrictions) for studies that evaluate the effect of MABPs on patients with OCD. We will conduct backward and forward citation searches of included studies and relevant reviews and contact corresponding authors. The primary outcome will be pre-post intervention change in symptom severity. A secondary outcome will be change in depressive symptoms. Two reviewers will independently screen the records, extract the data and rate the methodological quality of the studies. We will include both controlled and uncontrolled trials. Randomised controlled trials will be meta-analysed, separately assessing between-group effects. A second meta-analysis will assess the within-group effect of all eligible studies. We will explore moderators and sources of heterogeneity such as the specific programme, study design, changes in depressive symptoms, hours of guided treatment, control condition and prior therapy (eg, CBT) using metaregression and subgroup analyses. We will perform sensitivity analyses using follow-up data. A narrative synthesis will also be pursued. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of the evidence.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences.

Download Full-text