Pub Date : 2023-09-01Epub Date: 2023-08-18DOI: 10.1007/s11065-023-09606-2
Christoph Leonhard
The thoughtful commentaries in this volume of Drs. Bush, Jewsbury, and Faust add to the impact of the two reviews in this volume of statistical and methodological issues in the forensic neuropsychological determination of malingering based on performance and symptom validity tests (PVTs and SVTs). In his commentary, Dr. Bush raises, among others, the important question of whether such malingering determinations can still be considered as meeting the legal Daubert standard which is the basis for neuropsychological expert testimony. Dr. Jewsbury focuses mostly on statistical issues and agrees with two key points of the statistical review: Positive likelihood chaining is not a mathematically tenable method to combine findings of multiple PVTs and SVTs, and the Simple Bayes method is not applicable to malingering determinations. Dr. Faust adds important narrative texture to the implications for forensic neuropsychological practice and points to a need for research into factors other than malingering that may explain PVT and SVT failures. These commentaries put into even sharper focus the serious questions raised in the reviews about the scientific basis of present practices in the forensic neuropsychological determination of malingering.
{"title":"Quo Vadis Forensic Neuropsychological Malingering Determinations? Reply to Drs. Bush, Faust, and Jewsbury.","authors":"Christoph Leonhard","doi":"10.1007/s11065-023-09606-2","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11065-023-09606-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The thoughtful commentaries in this volume of Drs. Bush, Jewsbury, and Faust add to the impact of the two reviews in this volume of statistical and methodological issues in the forensic neuropsychological determination of malingering based on performance and symptom validity tests (PVTs and SVTs). In his commentary, Dr. Bush raises, among others, the important question of whether such malingering determinations can still be considered as meeting the legal Daubert standard which is the basis for neuropsychological expert testimony. Dr. Jewsbury focuses mostly on statistical issues and agrees with two key points of the statistical review: Positive likelihood chaining is not a mathematically tenable method to combine findings of multiple PVTs and SVTs, and the Simple Bayes method is not applicable to malingering determinations. Dr. Faust adds important narrative texture to the implications for forensic neuropsychological practice and points to a need for research into factors other than malingering that may explain PVT and SVT failures. These commentaries put into even sharper focus the serious questions raised in the reviews about the scientific basis of present practices in the forensic neuropsychological determination of malingering.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"653-657"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10021817","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-01Epub Date: 2023-08-18DOI: 10.1007/s11065-023-09604-4
Paul A Jewsbury
Dr. Leonhard presents a comprehensive and insightful critique of the existing malingering research literature and its implications for neuropsychological practice. Their statistical critique primarily focuses on the crucial issue of diagnostic inference when multiple tests are involved. While Leonhard effectively addresses certain misunderstandings, there are some overlooked misconceptions within the literature and a few new confusions were introduced. In order to provide a balanced commentary, this evaluation considers both Leonhard's critiques and the malingering research literature. Furthermore, a concise introduction to Bayesian diagnostic inference, utilizing the results of multiple tests, is provided. Misunderstandings regarding Bayesian inference are clarified, and a valid approach to Bayesian inference is elucidated. The assumptions underlying the simple Bayes model are thoroughly discussed, and it is demonstrated that the chained likelihood ratios method is an inappropriate application of this model due to one reason identified by Leonhard and another reason that has not been previously recognized. Leonhard's conclusions regarding the primary dependence of incremental validity on unconditional correlations and the alleged mathematical incorrectness of the simple Bayes model are refuted. Finally, potential directions for future research and practice in this field are explored and discussed.
{"title":"Invited Commentary: Bayesian Inference with Multiple Tests.","authors":"Paul A Jewsbury","doi":"10.1007/s11065-023-09604-4","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11065-023-09604-4","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Dr. Leonhard presents a comprehensive and insightful critique of the existing malingering research literature and its implications for neuropsychological practice. Their statistical critique primarily focuses on the crucial issue of diagnostic inference when multiple tests are involved. While Leonhard effectively addresses certain misunderstandings, there are some overlooked misconceptions within the literature and a few new confusions were introduced. In order to provide a balanced commentary, this evaluation considers both Leonhard's critiques and the malingering research literature. Furthermore, a concise introduction to Bayesian diagnostic inference, utilizing the results of multiple tests, is provided. Misunderstandings regarding Bayesian inference are clarified, and a valid approach to Bayesian inference is elucidated. The assumptions underlying the simple Bayes model are thoroughly discussed, and it is demonstrated that the chained likelihood ratios method is an inappropriate application of this model due to one reason identified by Leonhard and another reason that has not been previously recognized. Leonhard's conclusions regarding the primary dependence of incremental validity on unconditional correlations and the alleged mathematical incorrectness of the simple Bayes model are refuted. Finally, potential directions for future research and practice in this field are explored and discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"643-652"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10021823","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-01Epub Date: 2023-08-18DOI: 10.1007/s11065-023-09610-6
Stephen C Bowden, David W Loring
{"title":"Editorial.","authors":"Stephen C Bowden, David W Loring","doi":"10.1007/s11065-023-09610-6","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11065-023-09610-6","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"579-580"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10021824","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-01Epub Date: 2023-08-18DOI: 10.1007/s11065-023-09605-3
David Faust
Neuropsychologists' conclusions and courtroom testimony on malingering can have profound impact. Intensive and ingenious research has advanced our capacities to identify both insufficient and sufficient effort and thus make worthy contributions to just conflict resolution. Nevertheless, given multiple converging factors, such as misleadingly high accuracy rates in many studies, practitioners may well develop inflated confidence in methods for evaluating effort/malingering. Considerable research shows that overconfidence often increases diagnostic and predictive error and may lead to fixed conclusions when caution is better advised. Leonhard's work thus performs an important service by alerting us to methodological considerations and shortcomings that can generate misimpressions about the efficacy of effort/malingering assessment. The present commentary covers various additional complicating factors in malingering assessment, including other factors that also inflate confidence; subtle and perhaps underappreciated methodological flaws that are inversely related to positive study outcomes (i.e., the worse the flaws the better methods appear to be); oversimplified classifications schemes for studying and evaluating effort that overlook, for example, common mixed presentations (e.g., malingering and genuinely injured); and the need to expand research across a greater range and severity of neuropsychological conditions and diverse groups. More generally, although endorsing various points that Leonhard raises, a number of questions and concerns are presented, such as methods for calculating the impact of case exclusions in studies. Ultimately, although Leonhard's conclusions may be more negative than is justified, it seems fair to categorize methods for assessing malingering/effort as advancing, but not yet advanced, with much more needed to be done to approach that latter status.
{"title":"Invited Commentary: Advancing but not yet Advanced: Assessment of Effort/Malingering in Forensic and Clinical Settings.","authors":"David Faust","doi":"10.1007/s11065-023-09605-3","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11065-023-09605-3","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Neuropsychologists' conclusions and courtroom testimony on malingering can have profound impact. Intensive and ingenious research has advanced our capacities to identify both insufficient and sufficient effort and thus make worthy contributions to just conflict resolution. Nevertheless, given multiple converging factors, such as misleadingly high accuracy rates in many studies, practitioners may well develop inflated confidence in methods for evaluating effort/malingering. Considerable research shows that overconfidence often increases diagnostic and predictive error and may lead to fixed conclusions when caution is better advised. Leonhard's work thus performs an important service by alerting us to methodological considerations and shortcomings that can generate misimpressions about the efficacy of effort/malingering assessment. The present commentary covers various additional complicating factors in malingering assessment, including other factors that also inflate confidence; subtle and perhaps underappreciated methodological flaws that are inversely related to positive study outcomes (i.e., the worse the flaws the better methods appear to be); oversimplified classifications schemes for studying and evaluating effort that overlook, for example, common mixed presentations (e.g., malingering and genuinely injured); and the need to expand research across a greater range and severity of neuropsychological conditions and diverse groups. More generally, although endorsing various points that Leonhard raises, a number of questions and concerns are presented, such as methods for calculating the impact of case exclusions in studies. Ultimately, although Leonhard's conclusions may be more negative than is justified, it seems fair to categorize methods for assessing malingering/effort as advancing, but not yet advanced, with much more needed to be done to approach that latter status.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"628-642"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10012747","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-01DOI: 10.1007/s11065-023-09590-7
Montse Blasco, María García-Galant, Alba Berenguer-González, Xavier Caldú, Miquel Arqué, Olga Laporta-Hoyos, Júlia Ballester-Plané, Júlia Miralbell, María Ángeles Jurado, Roser Pueyo
{"title":"Correction to: Interventions with an Impact on Cognitive Functions in Cerebral Palsy: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Montse Blasco, María García-Galant, Alba Berenguer-González, Xavier Caldú, Miquel Arqué, Olga Laporta-Hoyos, Júlia Ballester-Plané, Júlia Miralbell, María Ángeles Jurado, Roser Pueyo","doi":"10.1007/s11065-023-09590-7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-023-09590-7","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":"33 2","pages":"578"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9361961","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-01DOI: 10.1007/s11065-022-09546-3
Elena S Lysenko, Mariia D Bogdanova, Marie Arsalidou
Pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS), is the manifestation of multiple sclerosis in individuals before 18 years of age. About a third of children with POMS show some form of lower cognitive performance. The purpose of this study is to examine using quantitative meta-analyses the effect size of altered performance between children with and without POMS on overall intelligence quotient (IQ), information processing speed, and language functions. We searched the literature for studies that reported scores on cognitive tests administered to children with and without POMS. Studies were systematically reviewed using PRISMA guidelines. We analyzed data from 14 studies that examined 1283 children with and without POMS when cognitive categories consisted of five or more studies. Effect sizes, publication bias and potential confounds were considered. Significant cognitive differences are revealed for all categories with the strongest effect observed for overall IQ. A moderate effect is observed for information processing speed, and small effects for verbal fluency and verbal memory. Cognitive abilities present differently in children with POMS and a better understanding of this manifestation will inform intervention and remediation tools that can improve clinical and educational practice for the benefit of children with POMS.
{"title":"Quantitative Meta-analyses of Cognitive Abilities in Children With Pediatric-onset Multiple Sclerosis.","authors":"Elena S Lysenko, Mariia D Bogdanova, Marie Arsalidou","doi":"10.1007/s11065-022-09546-3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-022-09546-3","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS), is the manifestation of multiple sclerosis in individuals before 18 years of age. About a third of children with POMS show some form of lower cognitive performance. The purpose of this study is to examine using quantitative meta-analyses the effect size of altered performance between children with and without POMS on overall intelligence quotient (IQ), information processing speed, and language functions. We searched the literature for studies that reported scores on cognitive tests administered to children with and without POMS. Studies were systematically reviewed using PRISMA guidelines. We analyzed data from 14 studies that examined 1283 children with and without POMS when cognitive categories consisted of five or more studies. Effect sizes, publication bias and potential confounds were considered. Significant cognitive differences are revealed for all categories with the strongest effect observed for overall IQ. A moderate effect is observed for information processing speed, and small effects for verbal fluency and verbal memory. Cognitive abilities present differently in children with POMS and a better understanding of this manifestation will inform intervention and remediation tools that can improve clinical and educational practice for the benefit of children with POMS.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":"33 2","pages":"459-473"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9396077","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-01DOI: 10.1007/s11065-022-09540-9
Madalina Bucur, Costanza Papagno
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) or globus pallidum internus (GPi) improves motor functions in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) but may cause a decline in specific cognitive domains. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the long-term (1-3 years) effects of STN or GPi DBS on four cognitive functions: (i) memory (delayed recall, working memory, immediate recall), (ii) executive functions including inhibition control (Color-Word Stroop test) and flexibility (phonemic verbal fluency), (iii) language (semantic verbal fluency), and (iv) mood (anxiety and depression). Medline and Web of Science were searched, and studies published before July 2021 investigating long-term changes in PD patients following DBS were included. Random-effects model meta-analyses were performed using the R software to estimate the standardized mean difference (SMD) computed as Hedges' g with 95% CI. 2522 publications were identified, 48 of which satisfied the inclusion criteria. Fourteen meta-analyses were performed including 2039 adults with a clinical diagnosis of PD undergoing DBS surgery and 271 PD controls. Our findings add new information to the existing literature by demonstrating that, at a long follow-up interval (1-3 years), both positive effects, such as a mild improvement in anxiety and depression (STN, Hedges' g = 0,34, p = 0,02), and negative effects, such as a decrease of long-term memory (Hedges' g = -0,40, p = 0,02), verbal fluency such as phonemic fluency (Hedges' g = -0,56, p < 0,0001), and specific subdomains of executive functions such as Color-Word Stroop test (Hedges' g = -0,45, p = 0,003) were observed. The level of evidence as qualified with GRADE varied from low for the pre- verses post-analysis to medium when compared to a control group.
脑深部刺激(DBS)丘脑下核(STN)或内白球(GPi)改善帕金森病患者的运动功能,但可能导致特定认知领域的下降。本系统综述和荟萃分析的目的是评估STN或GPi DBS对四项认知功能的长期(1-3年)影响:(i)记忆(延迟回忆、工作记忆、即时回忆),(ii)执行功能(包括抑制控制(颜色-单词Stroop测试)和灵活性(音位语言流畅性),(iii)语言(语义语言流畅性),(iv)情绪(焦虑和抑郁)。我们检索了Medline和Web of Science,并纳入了2021年7月之前发表的关于DBS后PD患者长期变化的研究。随机效应模型荟萃分析使用R软件来估计标准化平均差(SMD),计算为Hedges' g, 95% CI。确定了2522份出版物,其中48份符合纳入标准。进行了14项荟萃分析,包括2039名临床诊断为PD并接受DBS手术的成年人和271名PD对照组。我们的研究结果为现有文献增加了新的信息,表明在较长的随访间隔(1-3年),积极影响,如焦虑和抑郁的轻度改善(STN, Hedges' g = 0,34, p = 0,02),消极影响,如长期记忆的减少(Hedges' g = -0,40, p = 0,02),语言流利,如音位流利(Hedges' g = -0,56, p
{"title":"Deep Brain Stimulation in Parkinson Disease: A Meta-analysis of the Long-term Neuropsychological Outcomes.","authors":"Madalina Bucur, Costanza Papagno","doi":"10.1007/s11065-022-09540-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-022-09540-9","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) or globus pallidum internus (GPi) improves motor functions in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) but may cause a decline in specific cognitive domains. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the long-term (1-3 years) effects of STN or GPi DBS on four cognitive functions: (i) memory (delayed recall, working memory, immediate recall), (ii) executive functions including inhibition control (Color-Word Stroop test) and flexibility (phonemic verbal fluency), (iii) language (semantic verbal fluency), and (iv) mood (anxiety and depression). Medline and Web of Science were searched, and studies published before July 2021 investigating long-term changes in PD patients following DBS were included. Random-effects model meta-analyses were performed using the R software to estimate the standardized mean difference (SMD) computed as Hedges' g with 95% CI. 2522 publications were identified, 48 of which satisfied the inclusion criteria. Fourteen meta-analyses were performed including 2039 adults with a clinical diagnosis of PD undergoing DBS surgery and 271 PD controls. Our findings add new information to the existing literature by demonstrating that, at a long follow-up interval (1-3 years), both positive effects, such as a mild improvement in anxiety and depression (STN, Hedges' g = 0,34, p = 0,02), and negative effects, such as a decrease of long-term memory (Hedges' g = -0,40, p = 0,02), verbal fluency such as phonemic fluency (Hedges' g = -0,56, p < 0,0001), and specific subdomains of executive functions such as Color-Word Stroop test (Hedges' g = -0,45, p = 0,003) were observed. The level of evidence as qualified with GRADE varied from low for the pre- verses post-analysis to medium when compared to a control group.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":"33 2","pages":"307-346"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10148791/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9764744","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-01DOI: 10.1007/s11065-022-09552-5
Philippa Hüpen, Ute Habel, Mikhail Votinov, Joseph W Kable, Lisa Wagels
Both substance-related as well as non-substance-related addictions may include recurrent engagement in risky actions despite adverse outcomes. We here apply a unified approach and review task-based neuroimaging studies on substance-related (SRAs) and non-substance related addictions (NSRAs) to examine commonalities and differences in neural correlates of risk-taking in these two addiction types. To this end, we conducted a systematic review adhering to the PRISMA guidelines. Two databases were searched with predefined search terms to identify neuroimaging studies on risk-taking tasks in individuals with addiction disorders. In total, 19 studies on SRAs (comprising a total of 648 individuals with SRAs) and 10 studies on NSRAs (comprising a total of 187 individuals with NSRAs) were included. Risk-related brain activation in SRAs and NSRAs was summarized individually and subsequently compared to each other. Results suggest convergent altered risk-related neural processes, including hyperactivity in the OFC and the striatum. As characteristic for both addiction types, these brain regions may represent an underlying mechanism of suboptimal decision-making. In contrast, decreased DLPFC activity may be specific to SRAs and decreased IFG activity could only be identified for NSRAs. The precuneus and posterior cingulate show elevated activity in SRAs, while findings regarding these areas were mixed in NSRAs. Additional scarce evidence suggests decreased ventral ACC activity and increased dorsal ACC activity in both addiction types. Associations between identified activation patterns with drug use severity underpin the clinical relevance of these findings. However, this exploratory evidence should be interpreted with caution and should be regarded as preliminary. Future research is needed to evaluate the findings gathered by this review.
{"title":"A Systematic Review on Common and Distinct Neural Correlates of Risk-taking in Substance-related and Non-substance Related Addictions.","authors":"Philippa Hüpen, Ute Habel, Mikhail Votinov, Joseph W Kable, Lisa Wagels","doi":"10.1007/s11065-022-09552-5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-022-09552-5","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Both substance-related as well as non-substance-related addictions may include recurrent engagement in risky actions despite adverse outcomes. We here apply a unified approach and review task-based neuroimaging studies on substance-related (SRAs) and non-substance related addictions (NSRAs) to examine commonalities and differences in neural correlates of risk-taking in these two addiction types. To this end, we conducted a systematic review adhering to the PRISMA guidelines. Two databases were searched with predefined search terms to identify neuroimaging studies on risk-taking tasks in individuals with addiction disorders. In total, 19 studies on SRAs (comprising a total of 648 individuals with SRAs) and 10 studies on NSRAs (comprising a total of 187 individuals with NSRAs) were included. Risk-related brain activation in SRAs and NSRAs was summarized individually and subsequently compared to each other. Results suggest convergent altered risk-related neural processes, including hyperactivity in the OFC and the striatum. As characteristic for both addiction types, these brain regions may represent an underlying mechanism of suboptimal decision-making. In contrast, decreased DLPFC activity may be specific to SRAs and decreased IFG activity could only be identified for NSRAs. The precuneus and posterior cingulate show elevated activity in SRAs, while findings regarding these areas were mixed in NSRAs. Additional scarce evidence suggests decreased ventral ACC activity and increased dorsal ACC activity in both addiction types. Associations between identified activation patterns with drug use severity underpin the clinical relevance of these findings. However, this exploratory evidence should be interpreted with caution and should be regarded as preliminary. Future research is needed to evaluate the findings gathered by this review.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":"33 2","pages":"492-513"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10148787/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9389268","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-01DOI: 10.1007/s11065-022-09551-6
Simona Raimo, Mariachiara Gaita, Maria Cropano, Giusi Mautone, Alfonsina D'Iorio, Luigi Trojano, Gabriella Santangelo
Atypical Parkinsonism (AP) syndromes are characterized by a wide spectrum of non-motor symptoms including prominent attentional and executive deficits. However, the cognitive profile of AP and its differences and similarities with that of Parkinson's Disease (PD) are still a matter of debate. The present meta-analysis aimed at identifying patterns of cognitive impairment in AP by comparing global cognitive functioning, memory, executive functions, visuospatial abilities, language, non-verbal reasoning, and processing speed test performances of patients with AP relative to healthy controls and patients with PD. All investigated cognitive domains showed a substantial impairment in patients with AP compared to healthy controls. When AP syndromes were considered separately, their cognitive functioning was distributed along a continuum from Multiple Systemic Atrophy at one extreme, with the least impaired cognitive profile (similar to that observed in PD) to Progressive Supranuclear Palsy, with the greatest decline in global cognitive and executive functioning (similar to Corticobasal Syndrome). These findings indicate that widespread cognitive impairment could represent an important clinical indicator to distinguish AP from other movement disorders.
{"title":"The Cognitive Profile of Atypical Parkinsonism: A Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Simona Raimo, Mariachiara Gaita, Maria Cropano, Giusi Mautone, Alfonsina D'Iorio, Luigi Trojano, Gabriella Santangelo","doi":"10.1007/s11065-022-09551-6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-022-09551-6","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Atypical Parkinsonism (AP) syndromes are characterized by a wide spectrum of non-motor symptoms including prominent attentional and executive deficits. However, the cognitive profile of AP and its differences and similarities with that of Parkinson's Disease (PD) are still a matter of debate. The present meta-analysis aimed at identifying patterns of cognitive impairment in AP by comparing global cognitive functioning, memory, executive functions, visuospatial abilities, language, non-verbal reasoning, and processing speed test performances of patients with AP relative to healthy controls and patients with PD. All investigated cognitive domains showed a substantial impairment in patients with AP compared to healthy controls. When AP syndromes were considered separately, their cognitive functioning was distributed along a continuum from Multiple Systemic Atrophy at one extreme, with the least impaired cognitive profile (similar to that observed in PD) to Progressive Supranuclear Palsy, with the greatest decline in global cognitive and executive functioning (similar to Corticobasal Syndrome). These findings indicate that widespread cognitive impairment could represent an important clinical indicator to distinguish AP from other movement disorders.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":"33 2","pages":"514-543"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9749284","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-01Epub Date: 2022-06-14DOI: 10.1007/s11065-022-09543-6
Amelia J Hicks, Fiona J Clay, Amelia C James, Malcolm Hopwood, Jennie L Ponsford
Symptoms of depression are common following traumatic brain injury (TBI), impacting survivors' ability to return to work, participate in leisure activities, and placing strain on relationships. Depression symptoms post TBI are often managed with pharmacotherapy, however, there is little research evidence to guide clinical practice. There have been a number of recent systematic reviews examining pharmacotherapy for post TBI depression. The aim of this umbrella review was to synthesize systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for the management of post TBI depression in adults. Eligible reviews examined any pharmacotherapy against any comparators, for the treatment of depression in adults who had sustained TBI. Seven databases were searched, with additional searching of online journals, Research Gate, Google Scholar and the TRIP Medical Database to identify published and unpublished systematic reviews and meta-analyses in English up to May 2020. A systematic review of primary studies available between March 2018 and May 2020 was also conducted. Evidence quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Instruments. The results are presented as a narrative synthesis. Twenty-two systematic reviews were identified, of which ten reviews contained a meta-analysis. No new primary studies were identified in the systematic review. There was insufficient high quality and methodologically rigorous evidence to recommend prescribing any specific drug or drug class for post TBI depression. The findings do show, however, that depression post TBI is responsive to pharmacotherapy in at least some individuals. Recommendations for primary studies, systematic reviews and advice for prescribers is provided. Review Registration PROSPERO (CRD42020184915).
{"title":"Effectiveness of Pharmacotherapy for Depression after Adult Traumatic Brain Injury: an Umbrella Review.","authors":"Amelia J Hicks, Fiona J Clay, Amelia C James, Malcolm Hopwood, Jennie L Ponsford","doi":"10.1007/s11065-022-09543-6","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11065-022-09543-6","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Symptoms of depression are common following traumatic brain injury (TBI), impacting survivors' ability to return to work, participate in leisure activities, and placing strain on relationships. Depression symptoms post TBI are often managed with pharmacotherapy, however, there is little research evidence to guide clinical practice. There have been a number of recent systematic reviews examining pharmacotherapy for post TBI depression. The aim of this umbrella review was to synthesize systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for the management of post TBI depression in adults. Eligible reviews examined any pharmacotherapy against any comparators, for the treatment of depression in adults who had sustained TBI. Seven databases were searched, with additional searching of online journals, Research Gate, Google Scholar and the TRIP Medical Database to identify published and unpublished systematic reviews and meta-analyses in English up to May 2020. A systematic review of primary studies available between March 2018 and May 2020 was also conducted. Evidence quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Instruments. The results are presented as a narrative synthesis. Twenty-two systematic reviews were identified, of which ten reviews contained a meta-analysis. No new primary studies were identified in the systematic review. There was insufficient high quality and methodologically rigorous evidence to recommend prescribing any specific drug or drug class for post TBI depression. The findings do show, however, that depression post TBI is responsive to pharmacotherapy in at least some individuals. Recommendations for primary studies, systematic reviews and advice for prescribers is provided. Review Registration PROSPERO (CRD42020184915).</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":"33 2","pages":"393-431"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10148771/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9409226","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}