Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
243
result(s) for
"Cristea, Ioana"
Sort by:
The Effectiveness of Cognitive Bias Modification Interventions for Substance Addictions: A Meta-Analysis
Cognitive bias modification (CBM) interventions, presumably targeting automatic processes, are considered particularly promising for addictions. We conducted a meta-analysis examining randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CBM for substance addiction outcomes.
Studies were identified through systematic searches in bibliographical databases. We included RCTs of CBM interventions, alone or in combination with other treatments, for any type of addiction. We examined trial risk of bias, publication bias and possible moderators. Effects sizes were computed for post-test and follow-up, using a random-effects model. We grouped outcome measures and reported results for addiction (all related measures), craving and cognitive bias.
We identified 25 trials, 18 for alcohol problems, and 7 for smoking. At post-test, there was no significant effect of CBM for addiction, g = 0.08 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.18) or craving, g = 0.05 (95% CI -0.06 to 0.16), but there was a significant, moderate effect on cognitive bias, g = 0.60 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.79). Results were similar for alcohol and smoking outcomes taken separately. Follow-up addiction outcomes were reported in 7 trials, resulting in a small but significant effect of CBM, g = 0.18 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.32). Results for addiction and craving did not differ by substance type, sample type, delivery setting, bias targeted or number of sessions. Risk of bias was high or uncertain in most trials, for most criteria considered. Meta-regression analyses revealed significant inverse relationships between risk of bias and effect sizes for addiction outcomes and craving. The relationship between cognitive bias and respectively addiction ESs was not significant. There was consistent evidence of publication bias in the form of funnel plot asymmetry.
Our results cast serious doubts on the clinical utility of CBM interventions for addiction problems, but sounder methodological trials are necessary before this issue can be settled. We found no indication that positive effects on biases translate into effects on addiction outcomes.
Journal Article
Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure
Assessment of researchers is necessary for decisions of hiring, promotion, and tenure. A burgeoning number of scientific leaders believe the current system of faculty incentives and rewards is misaligned with the needs of society and disconnected from the evidence about the causes of the reproducibility crisis and suboptimal quality of the scientific publication record. To address this issue, particularly for the clinical and life sciences, we convened a 22-member expert panel workshop in Washington, DC, in January 2017. Twenty-two academic leaders, funders, and scientists participated in the meeting. As background for the meeting, we completed a selective literature review of 22 key documents critiquing the current incentive system. From each document, we extracted how the authors perceived the problems of assessing science and scientists, the unintended consequences of maintaining the status quo for assessing scientists, and details of their proposed solutions. The resulting table was used as a seed for participant discussion. This resulted in six principles for assessing scientists and associated research and policy implications. We hope the content of this paper will serve as a basis for establishing best practices and redesigning the current approaches to assessing scientists by the many players involved in that process.
Journal Article
A survey of biomedical journals to detect editorial bias and nepotistic behavior
Alongside the growing concerns regarding predatory journal growth, other questionable editorial practices have gained visibility recently. Among them, we explored the usefulness of the Percentage of Papers by the Most Prolific author (PPMP) and the Gini index (level of inequality in the distribution of authorship among authors) as tools to identify journals that may show favoritism in accepting articles by specific authors. We examined whether the PPMP, complemented by the Gini index, could be useful for identifying cases of potential editorial bias, using all articles in a sample of 5,468 biomedical journals indexed in the National Library of Medicine. For articles published between 2015 and 2019, the median PPMP was 2.9%, and 5% of journal exhibited a PPMP of 10.6% or more. Among the journals with the highest PPMP or Gini index values, where a few authors were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications, a random sample was manually examined, revealing that the most prolific author was part of the editorial board in 60 cases (61%). The papers by the most prolific authors were more likely to be accepted for publication within 3 weeks of their submission. Results of analysis on a subset of articles, excluding nonresearch articles, were consistent with those of the principal analysis. In most journals, publications are distributed across a large number of authors. Our results reveal a subset of journals where a few authors, often members of the editorial board, were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications. To enhance trust in their practices, journals need to be transparent about their editorial and peer review practices.
Journal Article
Efficacy of cognitive bias modification interventions in anxiety and depression: Meta-analysis
Cognitive bias modification (CBM) interventions are strongly advocated in research and clinical practice.
To examine the efficiency of CBM for clinically relevant outcomes, along with study quality, publication bias and potential moderators.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of CBM interventions that reported clinically relevant outcomes assessed with standardised instruments.
We identified 49 trials and grouped outcomes into anxiety and depression. Effect sizes were small considering all the samples, and mostly non-significant for patient samples. Effect sizes became non-significant when outliers were excluded and after adjustment for publication bias. The quality of the RCTs was suboptimal.
CBM may have small effects on mental health problems, but it is also very well possible that there are no significant clinically relevant effects. Research in this field is hampered by small and low-quality trials, and by risk of publication bias. Many positive outcomes are driven by extreme outliers.
Journal Article
Get Noticed and Die Trying: Signals, Sacrifice, and the Production of Face Time in Distributed Work
Research shows that displaying face time—being observed by others at work—leads to many positive outcomes for employees. Drawing on this prior work, we argue that face time helps employees to receive better work and leads to career advancement because it is a strong signal of their commitment to their job, their team, and their organization. But when employees are geographically distributed from managers who control the assignment of work, they are often unable to display face time. To compensate, employees must engage in other behaviors that signal commitment. Our study of two large, globally distributed, product-development companies demonstrates that employees who engage in certain behaviors can effectively signal their commitment to the organization and, as a consequence, will receive better work assignments. But because they operate in a competitive signaling environment, they have to continually engage in the behaviors that produce desired signals to the point where they often feel that they are sacrificing their personal lives for their job. We induct a model from our data that explains why simple behaviors that signal commitment eventually turn into feelings of sacrifice and why employees at headquarters who have the power to assign better work fail to notice the sacrifice behind the signals. We discuss the implications of this model and the signal misalignment it explains for theories of distributed work and signaling in organizations.
The online appendix is available at
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1265
.
Journal Article
Meta-research studies should improve and evaluate their own data sharing practices
Data sharing is gradually becoming a requirement across all fields of science, owing to its key benefits in verifying the reproducibility of findings and reusing existent data for new purposes. Although metaresearch studies are complex, time-consuming, and hinge on the availability of data produced and curated by others, there has been little focus on how they make their own data available. This is in stark contrast to the heightened attention data sharing has received in clinical research. Yet, as secondary data users par excellence, metaresearchers are ethically bound to both improving and evaluating data sharing practices and correctly sharing their own data. We contrast particularities of data sharing in metaresearch and clinical research, such as benefits, barriers, and inadequate and potentially pervasive sharing practices. We conclude with an array of concrete and tailored recommendations for improvement.
Journal Article
Care-as-usual control groups across different settings in randomized trials on psychotherapy for adult depression: a meta-analysis
Care-as-usual (CAU) is often used as a control condition in psychotherapy research, but it may vary considerably what that entails, ranging from no treatment, to routine treatment in primary care, general medical care, perinatal care, and specialized mental health care.
We conducted a meta-analysis of trials comparing psychotherapy for depression to CAU, with a focus on the different categories of CAU and countries where the studies were conducted. We used an existing database of randomized trials on psychotherapy for depression that is updated every year.
A total of 140 studies with 15 419 patients were included. We found no significant differences in effects between categories of CAU (effect sizes ranging from g = 0.43 for CAU in primary care to g = 0.73 for no treatment), but heterogeneity was high in all CAU categories. After stratifying effects across specific countries (within CAU categories) we found that heterogeneity was considerably lower and there were several significant differences between countries. Overall, effects were larger in non-Western countries (g = 0.84 to 1.28) compared to those in Western countries (g = 0.52; p for difference = 0.002). Effects were smaller in studies with risk of bias (p = 0.01).
There are no significant differences between major categories of CAU when compared to psychotherapy conditions in randomized trials. However, effects of psychotherapy differ considerably across CAU conditions in specific countries. CAU therefore is a heterogeneous control condition in psychotherapy research.
Journal Article
Improving the transparency and reliability of observational studies through registration
Florian Naudet and colleagues argue that routine registration of observational research is needed and suggest how current processes can be adapted to facilitate it
Journal Article
Probing cerebellar involvement in cognition through a meta-analysis of TMS evidence
Traditionally, the cerebellum has been linked to motor coordination, but growing evidence points to its involvement in a wide range of non-motor functions. Though the number of studies using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to investigate cerebellar involvement in cognitive processes is growing exponentially, these findings have not yet been synthesized in a meta-analysis. Here, we used meta-analysis to estimate the effects of cerebellar TMS on performance in cognitive tasks for healthy participants. Outcomes included participants’ accuracy and response times (RTs) of several non-motor tasks performed either during or after the administration of TMS. We included overall 41 studies, of which 44 single experiments reported effects on accuracy and 41 on response times (RTs). The meta-analyses showed medium effect sizes (for accuracy:
d
= 0.61 [95%
CI
= 0.48, .073]; for RTs:
d
= 0.40 [95%
CI
= 0.30, 0.49]), with leave-one-out analyses indicating that cumulative effects were robust, and with moderate heterogeneity. For both accuracy and RTs, the effect of TMS was moderated by the stimulation paradigm adopted but not by the cognitive function investigated, while the timing of the stimulation moderated only the effects on RTs. Further analyses on lateralization revealed no moderation effects of the TMS site. Taken together, these findings indicate that TMS administered over the cerebellum is able to modulate cognitive performance, affecting accuracy or RTs, and suggest that the various stimulation paradigms play a key role in determining the efficacy of cerebellar TMS.
Journal Article