Cognitive testing following transient ischaemic attack: A systematic review of clinical assessment tools.

IF 1.6 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Cogent Psychology Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1080/23311908.2023.2196005
Alexander Hammant, Tamara Chithiramohan, Victoria Haunton, Lucy Beishon
{"title":"Cognitive testing following transient ischaemic attack: A systematic review of clinical assessment tools.","authors":"Alexander Hammant,&nbsp;Tamara Chithiramohan,&nbsp;Victoria Haunton,&nbsp;Lucy Beishon","doi":"10.1080/23311908.2023.2196005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Cognitive deficits are prevalent after transient ischaemic attack (TIA) and result in loss of function, poorer quality of life and increased risks of dependency and mortality. This systematic review aimed to synthesise the available evidence on cognitive assessment in TIA patients to determine the prevalence of cognitive deficits, and the optimal tests for cognitive assessment. Medline, Embase, PsychINFO and CINAHL databases were searched for relevant articles. Articles were screened by title and abstract. Full-text analysis and quality assessment was performed using the National Institute of Health Tool. Data were extracted on study characteristics, prevalence of TIA deficits, and key study findings. Due to significant heterogeneity, meta-analysis was not possible. Twenty-five full-text articles met the review inclusion criteria. There was significant heterogeneity in terms of cognitive tests used, definitions of cognitive impairment and TIA, time points post-event, and analysis methods. The majority of studies used the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) or Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) (<i>n</i> = 23). Prevalence of cognitive impairment ranged from 2% to 100%, depending on the time-point and cognitive domain studied. The MoCA was more sensitive than the MMSE for identifying cognitive deficits. Deficits were common in executive function, attention, and language. No studies assessed diagnostic test accuracy against a reference standard diagnosis of cognitive impairment. Recommendations on cognitive testing after TIA are hampered by significant heterogeneity between studies, as well as a lack of diagnostic test accuracy studies. Future research should focus on harmonising tools, definitions, and time-points, and validating tools specifically for the TIA population.</p>","PeriodicalId":46323,"journal":{"name":"Cogent Psychology","volume":"10 1","pages":"2196005"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10069374/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cogent Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2023.2196005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Cognitive deficits are prevalent after transient ischaemic attack (TIA) and result in loss of function, poorer quality of life and increased risks of dependency and mortality. This systematic review aimed to synthesise the available evidence on cognitive assessment in TIA patients to determine the prevalence of cognitive deficits, and the optimal tests for cognitive assessment. Medline, Embase, PsychINFO and CINAHL databases were searched for relevant articles. Articles were screened by title and abstract. Full-text analysis and quality assessment was performed using the National Institute of Health Tool. Data were extracted on study characteristics, prevalence of TIA deficits, and key study findings. Due to significant heterogeneity, meta-analysis was not possible. Twenty-five full-text articles met the review inclusion criteria. There was significant heterogeneity in terms of cognitive tests used, definitions of cognitive impairment and TIA, time points post-event, and analysis methods. The majority of studies used the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) or Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) (n = 23). Prevalence of cognitive impairment ranged from 2% to 100%, depending on the time-point and cognitive domain studied. The MoCA was more sensitive than the MMSE for identifying cognitive deficits. Deficits were common in executive function, attention, and language. No studies assessed diagnostic test accuracy against a reference standard diagnosis of cognitive impairment. Recommendations on cognitive testing after TIA are hampered by significant heterogeneity between studies, as well as a lack of diagnostic test accuracy studies. Future research should focus on harmonising tools, definitions, and time-points, and validating tools specifically for the TIA population.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
短暂性脑缺血发作后的认知测试:临床评估工具的系统回顾。
认知缺陷在短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA)后普遍存在,导致功能丧失,生活质量下降,依赖和死亡风险增加。本系统综述旨在综合TIA患者认知评估的现有证据,以确定认知缺陷的患病率,以及认知评估的最佳测试。在Medline、Embase、PsychINFO和CINAHL数据库中检索相关文章。文章按标题和摘要进行筛选。全文分析和质量评估使用国家卫生研究所的工具。我们提取了有关研究特征、TIA缺陷患病率和主要研究结果的数据。由于异质性显著,不可能进行meta分析。25篇全文文章符合审查纳入标准。在使用的认知测试、认知障碍和TIA的定义、事件后时间点和分析方法方面存在显著的异质性。大多数研究使用了简易精神状态检查(MMSE)或蒙特利尔认知评估(MoCA) (n = 23)。认知障碍的患病率从2%到100%不等,取决于所研究的时间点和认知领域。MoCA在识别认知缺陷方面比MMSE更敏感。缺陷在执行功能、注意力和语言方面很常见。没有研究评估诊断测试与认知障碍的参考标准诊断的准确性。由于研究之间存在显著的异质性,以及缺乏诊断测试准确性的研究,对TIA后认知测试的建议受到阻碍。未来的研究应侧重于协调工具、定义和时间点,并验证专门针对TIA人群的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cogent Psychology
Cogent Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
75
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: One of the largest multidisciplinary open access journals serving the psychology community, Cogent Psychology provides a home for scientifically sound peer-reviewed research. Part of Taylor & Francis / Routledge, the journal provides authors with fast peer review and publication and, through open access publishing, endeavours to help authors share their knowledge with the world. Cogent Psychology particularly encourages interdisciplinary studies and also accepts replication studies and negative results. Cogent Psychology covers a broad range of topics and welcomes submissions in all areas of psychology, ranging from social psychology to neuroscience, and everything in between. Led by Editor-in-Chief Professor Peter Walla of Webster Private University, Austria, and supported by an expert editorial team from institutions across the globe, Cogent Psychology provides our authors with comprehensive and quality peer review. Rather than accepting manuscripts based on their level of importance or impact, editors assess manuscripts objectively, accepting valid, scientific research with sound rigorous methodology. Article-level metrics let the research speak for itself.
期刊最新文献
Resilience of Indonesian Navy Wives: effects of self-efficacy and social support Vaccination behavior under uncertainty: a longitudinal study on factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination behavior in Japan with a focus on the effect of close contacts’ vaccination behavior Multinational validation of the Arabic version of the Artificial Intelligence Literacy Scale (AILS) in university students Factorial validity and norms of the German and British-English online Conflict Monitoring Questionnaire Investigating gender and racial-ethnic biases in sentiment analysis of language
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1