CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Psychotherapy Treatment of Generalized Anxiety Disorder Improves When Conducted Under Narrow Band Green Light

Melo-Carrillo, Agustin, Rodriguez, Raul, Ashina, Sait, Lipinski, Brittany, Hart, Paul, Burstein, Rami·2023·Psychology Research and Behavior Management
DOI 10.2147/prbm.s388042PMC PMC9885775
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

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 · 10.2147/prbm.s388042

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Experimental design.
Figure 1 Experimental design.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Analysis of participants’ responses to all 20 items in the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI Form Y-1). Histograms illustrate the score each item received before (gray bar) and after psychotherapy sessions conducted under white light (white bars) and narrow band green light (green bars). Answers to positively worded questions are shown on the left, and answers to negatively worded questions are shown on the right. Positively worded questions included: 1. I feel calm, 2. I feel secure, 3. I feel at ease, 4. I feel satisfied, 5. I feel comfortable, 6. I feel self-confident, 7. I am relaxed, 8. I feel content, 9. I feel steady, 10. I feel pleasant. Negatively worded questions included: 1. I am tense, 2. I feel strained, 3. I feel upset, 4. I am presently worrying over possible misfortunes, 5. I feel frightened, 6. I feel nervous, 7. I am jittery, 8. I feel indecisive, 9. I am worried, 10. I feel confused. Each question was scored as follows: 1 - not at all, 2 - somewhat, 3 - moderately so, 4 = very much so. Line plots illustrate mean ± SD of scores each subject provided for all 10 positively worded and all 10 negatively worded items before and after the 2 sessions in white light and 6 sessions in nbGL. (A) Example of a patient in which improvement in psychotherapy sessions conducted under nbGL was shown by the answers to both positive and negative questions (circled). (B) Example of a patient in which improvement under nbGL was shown by the answers to the positive (circled) but not negative questions. (C) Example of a patient in which improvement under nbGL was shown by the answers to the negative (circled) but not positive questions. (D) Example of a patient in which responses to positive or negative questions reflected no improvement under nbGL.
Figure 2 Analysis of participants’ responses to all 20 items in the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI Form Y-1). Histograms illustrate the score each item received before (gray bar) and after psychotherapy sessions conducted under white light (white bars) and narrow band green light (green bars). Answers to positively worded questions are shown on the left, and answers to negatively worded questions are shown on the right. Positively worded questions included: 1. I feel calm, 2. I feel secure, 3. I feel at ease, 4. I feel satisfied, 5. I feel comfortable, 6. I feel self-confident, 7. I am relaxed, 8. I feel content, 9. I feel steady, 10. I feel pleasant. Negatively worded questions included: 1. I am tense, 2. I feel strained, 3. I feel upset, 4. I am presently worrying over possible misfortunes, 5. I feel frightened, 6. I feel nervous, 7. I am jittery, 8. I feel indecisive, 9. I am worried, 10. I feel confused. Each question was scored as follows: 1 - not at all, 2 - somewhat, 3 - moderately so, 4 = very much so. Line plots illustrate mean ± SD of scores each subject provided for all 10 positively worded and all 10 negatively worded items before and after the 2 sessions in white light and 6 sessions in nbGL. (A) Example of a patient in which improvement in psychotherapy sessions conducted under nbGL was shown by the answers to both positive and negative questions (circled). (B) Example of a patient in which improvement under nbGL was shown by the answers to the positive (circled) but not negative questions. (C) Example of a patient in which improvement under nbGL was shown by the answers to the negative (circled) but not positive questions. (D) Example of a patient in which responses to positive or negative questions reflected no improvement under nbGL.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Item-by-item analysis: (A) Analysis of the frequency of positive items showing improvement under WL (white bars) as compared to nbGL (green bars) conditions. (B) Analysis of the frequency of negative items showing improvement under WL (white bars) as compared to nbGL (green bars) conditions. Asterisks depict items where improvement under nbGL was >50% higher than under WL.
Figure 3 Item-by-item analysis: (A) Analysis of the frequency of positive items showing improvement under WL (white bars) as compared to nbGL (green bars) conditions. (B) Analysis of the frequency of negative items showing improvement under WL (white bars) as compared to nbGL (green bars) conditions. Asterisks depict items where improvement under nbGL was >50% higher than under WL.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Effectiveness of psychotherapy under nbGL vs WL. (A) Analysis of the 3 most predictive positively worded items. In the scatograms, each of the 39 dots represents the average of the scores given by each of the 13 patients to each item before and after exposure to white (average of 2 sessions) and nbGL (average of 6 sessions) lights. The Boxplots show median and IQR. (C) Analysis of the 4 most predictive negatively worded items. In the scatograms, each of the 52 dots represents the average of the scores given by each of the 13 patients to each item before and after exposure to white (average of 2 sessions) and nbGL (average of 6 sessions) lights. The Boxplots show median and IQR. (B and D) Line plots of median and IQR show direction of improvement. Asterisks depict significant difference p<0.05 Wilcoxon signed rank test.
Figure 4 Effectiveness of psychotherapy under nbGL vs WL. (A) Analysis of the 3 most predictive positively worded items. In the scatograms, each of the 39 dots represents the average of the scores given by each of the 13 patients to each item before and after exposure to white (average of 2 sessions) and nbGL (average of 6 sessions) lights. The Boxplots show median and IQR. (C) Analysis of the 4 most predictive negatively worded items. In the scatograms, each of the 52 dots represents the average of the scores given by each of the 13 patients to each item before and after exposure to white (average of 2 sessions) and nbGL (average of 6 sessions) lights. The Boxplots show median and IQR. (B and D) Line plots of median and IQR show direction of improvement. Asterisks depict significant difference p<0.05 Wilcoxon signed rank test.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. 2006, The Headaches
  2. Burch, 2018, Headache, 58, 496, 10.1111/head.13281 · DOI
  3. Lipton, 2007, Neurology, 68, 343, 10.1212/01.wnl.0000252808.97649.21 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Disease, 2017, Lancet, 390, 1211, 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32154-2 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Stewart, 2008, Cephalalgia, 28, 1170, 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2008.01666.x · DOI
  6. Goldberg, 2005, Am J Manag Care, 11, S62
  7. Hawkins, 2008, Headache, 48, 553, 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2007.00990.x · DOI
  8. Hawkins, 2007, J Occup Environ Med, 49, 368, 10.1097/JOM.0b013e31803b9510 · DOI
  9. Bonafede, 2018, Headache, 58, 700, 10.1111/head.13275 · DOI
  10. 1873, On Megrim, Sick Headache
  11. Selby, 1960, J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiat, 23, 23, 10.1136/jnnp.23.1.23 · DOI
  12. Drummond, 1986, Headache, 26, 465, 10.1111/j.1526-4610.1986.hed2609465.x · DOI
  13. Burstein, 2019, J Neuroophthalmol, 39, 94, 10.1097/WNO.0000000000000766 · DOI
  14. Noseda, 2016, Brain, 139, 1971, 10.1093/brain/aww119 · DOI
  15. Noseda, 2011, J Neurosci, 31, 14204, 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3285-11.2011 · DOI
  16. Ibrahim, 2017, Pain, 158, 347, 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000767 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Martin, 2021, Cephalalgia, 41, 135, 10.1177/0333102420956711 · DOI
  18. Noseda, 2017, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 114, E5683, 10.1073/pnas.1708361114 · DOI
  19. Patriquin, 2017, Chronic Stress, 1, 10.1177/2470547017703993 · DOI
  20. Nir, 2018, Pain, 159, 2030, 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001303 · DOI
  21. Bernstein, 2019, Pain, 160, 569, 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001434 · DOI
  22. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-5. Vol. 5. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013. · DOI · Paper page
  23. Kessler, 2010, Curr Top Behav Neurosci, 2, 21, 10.1007/7854_2009_9 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Kessler, 2005, Arch Gen Psychiatry, 62, 593, 10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.593 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Bandelow, 2015, Dialogues Clin Neurosci, 17, 327, 10.31887/DCNS.2015.17.3/bbandelow · DOI · Paper page
  26. Wittchen, 2011, Eur Neuropsychopharmacol, 21, 655, 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2011.07.018 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Otte, 2011, Dialogues Clin Neurosci, 13, 413, 10.31887/DCNS.2011.13.4/cotte · DOI · Paper page
  28. Nutt, 2007, J Clin Psychiatry, 68, 42
  29. Ogrodniczuk, 2005, Harv Rev Psychiatry, 13, 57, 10.1080/10673220590956429 · DOI
  30. Owen, 2012, J Couns Psychol, 59, 314, 10.1037/a0027091 · DOI
  31. Krishnamurthy, 2015, J Clin Psychol, 71, 199, 10.1002/jclp.22122 · DOI
  32. Wetherell, 2003, CNS Spectr, 8, 48, 10.1017/S1092852900008270 · DOI
  33. Murray, 2012, Lancet, 380, 2197, 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61689-4 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Diekhof, 2011, NeuroImage, 58, 275, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.05.073 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Roy, 2013, J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry, 52, 290, 10.1016/j.jaac.2012.12.010 · DOI
  36. Etkin, 2009, Arch Gen Psychiatry, 66, 1361, 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2009.104 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Etkin, 2007, Am J Psychiatry, 164, 1476, 10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.07030504 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Teed, 2022, JAMA Psychiatry, 79, 323, 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.4225 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Noseda, 2014, PLoS One, 9, e103929, 10.1371/journal.pone.0103929 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Melo-Carrillo, A., Rodriguez, R., Ashina, S., Lipinski, B., Hart, P., & Burstein, R.
Venue
Psychology Research and Behavior Management
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2023-01
Volume
Volume 16
Pages
241-250
ISSN
1179-1578
DOI
10.2147/prbm.s388042
PMC
PMC9885775
Cited by
4
References
8
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (unspecified)

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