CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 383Neuroendocrine regulation and behaviorOlfactory and Sensory Function StudiesStress Responses and Cortisol

Sniffing around oxytocin: Review and meta-analyses of trials in healthy and clinical groups with implications for pharmacotherapy

Open access
Bakermans-Kranenburg, M J, van IJzendoorn, M H·2013·Translational Psychiatry
DOI 10.1038/tp.2013.34PMC PMC3669921
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The popularity of oxytocin (OT) has grown exponentially during the past decade, and so has the number of OT trials in healthy and clinical groups. We take stock of the evidence from these studies to explore potentials and limitations of pharmacotherapeutic applications. In healthy participants, intranasally administered OT leads to better emotion recognition and more trust in conspecifics, but the effects appear to be moderated by context (perceived threat of the 'out-group'), personality and childhood experiences. In individuals with untoward childhood experiences, positive behavioral or neurobiological effects seem lowered or absent. In 19 clinical trials, covering autism, social anxiety, postnatal depression, obsessive-compulsive problems, schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder and post-traumatic stress, the effects of OT administration were tested, with doses ranging from 15 IU to more than 7000 IU. The combined effect size was d=0.32 (N=304; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.18-0.47; P<0.01). However, of all disorders, only studies on autism spectrum disorder showed a significant combined effect size (d=0.57; N=68; 95% CI: 0.15-0.99; P<0.01). We hypothesize that for some of the other disorders, etiological factors rooted in negative childhood experiences may also have a role in the diminished effectiveness of treatment with OT.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/tp.2013.34

Cites

143 of 143 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • These meta-analyses yielded summarized effect sizes ranging from d=0.21 to d=0.48.

    “These studies yielded summarized effect sizes ranging from d=0.21 to d=0.48.”

    From Statistical and Methodological Considerations for the Interpretation of Intranasal Oxytocin Studies (2016) · cites this paper as [11]

    The Meta-analysis section reports a combined effect size of d=0.32 for 19 clinical experiments and d=0.57 for the autism-spectrum subset. The latter exceeds the claimed upper bound of d=0.48; the reported range is therefore not supported by this paper. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The meta-analyses mentioned in this paper all tested for evidence of publication bias in the intranasal oxytocin literature, with mixed results.

    “The meta-analyses mentioned in this paper all tested for evidence of publication bias in the IN-OT literature, with mixed results (9–11).”

    From Statistical and Methodological Considerations for the Interpretation of Intranasal Oxytocin Studies (2016) · cites this paper as [11]

    The Meta-analysis section reports using trim-and-fill to assess potential publication bias in the clinical-trial meta-analysis and finding no bias against small studies with small effects. The Meta-analytic evidence section also describes analyses of healthy participants, but does not report publication-bias tests for them. This source therefore supports that a bias test was conducted, not that all the meta-analyses mentioned were tested or that their bias results were mixed. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In the meta-analysis by Bakermans-Kranenburg and Van IJzendoorn, IN-OT seems to have the largest effect size in individuals with autism, with d=0.57 for autism compared to d=0.32 for all clinical studies.

    “Finally, in the meta-analysis by Bakermans-Kranenburg and Van IJzendoorn (11) IN-OT seems to have the largest effect size in individuals with autism. Only four studies of autism were included in the analysis and should therefore be interpreted cautiously. However, the larger effect size for autism (d=0.57) compared to all clinical studies (d=0.32)”

    From Statistical and Methodological Considerations for the Interpretation of Intranasal Oxytocin Studies (2016) · cites this paper as [11]

    The Meta-analysis reports d=0.57 for four studies grouped under autism spectrum disorder, compared with d=0.32 across 19 clinical experiments, and cautions that the syndrome-specific evidence is small. But the autism grouping includes Prader–Willi syndrome, and the paper’s Autism spectrum disorders section describes an intravenous OT trial; these figures are not presented as estimates exclusively for intranasal OT in individuals with autism. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Bakermans-Kranenburg and Van IJzendoorn studied the effect of intranasal oxytocin in clinical trials.

    “Bakermans-Kranenburg and Van IJzendoorn studied the effect of IN-OT in clinical trials (19 effect sizes, total N=304)(11).”

    From Statistical and Methodological Considerations for the Interpretation of Intranasal Oxytocin Studies (2016) · cites this paper as [11]

  • Three meta-analyses of the effects of intranasal oxytocin on human behavior have been published to date.

    “To date three meta-analyses of the effects of IN-OT on human behavior have been published.”

    From Statistical and Methodological Considerations for the Interpretation of Intranasal Oxytocin Studies (2016) · cites this paper as [11]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H.
Venue
Translational Psychiatry
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2013-05-21
Volume
3
Issue
5
Pages
e258-e258
ISSN
2158-3188 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/tp.2013.34
PMC
PMC3669921
OpenAlex
W1966317054
Cited by
383
References
142
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 55 · 2016: 43 · 2015: 59 · 2014: 40 · 2013: 9
FWCI
6.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Translational Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Olfactory and Sensory Function Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
Keywords
oxytocin, intranasal administration, pharmacotherapy, autism spectrum disorder, social anxiety, postpartum depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, emotion recognition, trust, child abuse, personality moderators, treatment effect size
MeSH terms
Administration, Intranasal, Anxiety, Mental Disorders, Child, Child Development Disorders, Pervasive, Depression, Humans, Oxytocin, Personality Disorders, Phobic Disorders, Schizophrenia, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Anti-Anxiety Agents, Trust

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review