自由提示选择性提醒测试(FCSRT)在额颞叶痴呆行为变体中评估的真实记忆缺陷。系统综述和荟萃分析研究。

IF 5.4 2区 心理学 Q1 NEUROSCIENCES Neuropsychology Review Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-22 DOI:10.1007/s11065-023-09613-3
Luigi Macchitella, Giorgia Tosi, Francesco Giaquinto, Marika Iaia, Ezia Rizzi, Ylenia Chiarello, Maxime Bertoux, Paola Angelelli, Daniele Luigi Romano
{"title":"自由提示选择性提醒测试(FCSRT)在额颞叶痴呆行为变体中评估的真实记忆缺陷。系统综述和荟萃分析研究。","authors":"Luigi Macchitella, Giorgia Tosi, Francesco Giaquinto, Marika Iaia, Ezia Rizzi, Ylenia Chiarello, Maxime Bertoux, Paola Angelelli, Daniele Luigi Romano","doi":"10.1007/s11065-023-09613-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The current diagnostic criteria for the behavioural variant of frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) foresee a relative sparing of long-term memory. Although bvFTD patients were thought to report secondary memory deficits associated with prefrontal dysfunctions, some studies indicated the presence of a \"genuine memory deficit\" related to mesial temporal lobe dysfunctions. Among various neuropsychological tests, the Free and Cue Selective Reminding Test (FCSRT) has been recommended to distinguish genuine from apparent amnesia. We conducted a systematic review and a random effect Bayesian meta-analysis to evaluate the nature and severity of memory deficit in bvFTD. Our objective was to determine whether the existing literature offers evidence of genuine or apparent amnesia in patients with bvFTD, as assessed via the FCSRT. On 06/19/2021, we conducted a search across four databases (PMC, Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed). We included all studies that evaluated memory performance using the FCSRT in patients with bvFTD, as long as they also included either cognitively unimpaired participants or AD groups. We tested publication bias through the Funnel plot and Egger's test. To assess the quality of studies, we used the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale adapted for cross-sectional studies. We included 16 studies in the meta-analysis. The results showed that bvFTD patients perform better than AD patients (pooled effects between 0.95 and 1.14), as their memory performance stands between AD and control groups (pooled effects between - 2.19 and - 1.25). Moreover, patients with bvFTD present both genuine and secondary memory disorders. As a major limitation of this study, due to our adoption of a rigorous methodology and stringent inclusion criteria, we ended up with just 16 studies. Nonetheless, our robust findings can contribute to the ongoing discussion on international consensus criteria for bvFTD and the selection of appropriate neuropsychological tools to facilitate the differential diagnosis between AD and bvFTD.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"823-837"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11473568/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Genuine Memory Deficits as Assessed by the Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test (FCSRT) in the Behavioural Variant of Frontotemporal Dementia. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Study.\",\"authors\":\"Luigi Macchitella, Giorgia Tosi, Francesco Giaquinto, Marika Iaia, Ezia Rizzi, Ylenia Chiarello, Maxime Bertoux, Paola Angelelli, Daniele Luigi Romano\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11065-023-09613-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The current diagnostic criteria for the behavioural variant of frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) foresee a relative sparing of long-term memory. Although bvFTD patients were thought to report secondary memory deficits associated with prefrontal dysfunctions, some studies indicated the presence of a \\\"genuine memory deficit\\\" related to mesial temporal lobe dysfunctions. Among various neuropsychological tests, the Free and Cue Selective Reminding Test (FCSRT) has been recommended to distinguish genuine from apparent amnesia. We conducted a systematic review and a random effect Bayesian meta-analysis to evaluate the nature and severity of memory deficit in bvFTD. Our objective was to determine whether the existing literature offers evidence of genuine or apparent amnesia in patients with bvFTD, as assessed via the FCSRT. On 06/19/2021, we conducted a search across four databases (PMC, Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed). We included all studies that evaluated memory performance using the FCSRT in patients with bvFTD, as long as they also included either cognitively unimpaired participants or AD groups. We tested publication bias through the Funnel plot and Egger's test. To assess the quality of studies, we used the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale adapted for cross-sectional studies. We included 16 studies in the meta-analysis. The results showed that bvFTD patients perform better than AD patients (pooled effects between 0.95 and 1.14), as their memory performance stands between AD and control groups (pooled effects between - 2.19 and - 1.25). Moreover, patients with bvFTD present both genuine and secondary memory disorders. As a major limitation of this study, due to our adoption of a rigorous methodology and stringent inclusion criteria, we ended up with just 16 studies. Nonetheless, our robust findings can contribute to the ongoing discussion on international consensus criteria for bvFTD and the selection of appropriate neuropsychological tools to facilitate the differential diagnosis between AD and bvFTD.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49754,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neuropsychology Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"823-837\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11473568/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neuropsychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-023-09613-3\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-023-09613-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目前对额颞叶痴呆(bvFTD)行为变体的诊断标准预测了长期记忆的相对保留。尽管bvFTD患者被认为报告了与前额叶功能障碍相关的继发性记忆缺陷,但一些研究表明,存在与内侧颞叶功能障碍相关的“真正的记忆缺陷”。在各种神经心理学测试中,自由提示选择性提醒测试(FCSRT)被推荐用于区分真正的健忘症和明显的健忘主义。我们进行了一项系统综述和随机效应贝叶斯荟萃分析,以评估bvFTD中记忆缺陷的性质和严重程度。我们的目的是确定现有文献是否提供了通过FCSRT评估的bvFTD患者真正或明显健忘症的证据。2021年6月19日,我们在四个数据库(PMC、Scopus、Web of Science和PubMed)中进行了搜索。我们纳入了所有使用FCSRT评估bvFTD患者记忆表现的研究,只要它们也包括认知未受损的参与者或AD组。我们通过漏斗图和艾格检验检验了发表偏倚。为了评估研究的质量,我们使用了适用于横断面研究的纽卡斯尔-渥太华质量评估量表。我们在荟萃分析中纳入了16项研究。结果显示,bvFTD患者的表现优于AD患者(综合效应在0.95和1.14之间),因为他们的记忆表现介于AD组和对照组之间(综合效应介于 - 2.19和 - 1.25)。此外,bvFTD患者同时存在真正的和继发性的记忆障碍。作为本研究的一个主要局限性,由于我们采用了严格的方法和严格的纳入标准,我们最终只进行了16项研究。尽管如此,我们强有力的发现有助于对bvFTD的国际共识标准进行持续的讨论,并有助于选择适当的神经心理学工具来促进AD和bvFTD之间的鉴别诊断。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Genuine Memory Deficits as Assessed by the Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test (FCSRT) in the Behavioural Variant of Frontotemporal Dementia. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Study.

The current diagnostic criteria for the behavioural variant of frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) foresee a relative sparing of long-term memory. Although bvFTD patients were thought to report secondary memory deficits associated with prefrontal dysfunctions, some studies indicated the presence of a "genuine memory deficit" related to mesial temporal lobe dysfunctions. Among various neuropsychological tests, the Free and Cue Selective Reminding Test (FCSRT) has been recommended to distinguish genuine from apparent amnesia. We conducted a systematic review and a random effect Bayesian meta-analysis to evaluate the nature and severity of memory deficit in bvFTD. Our objective was to determine whether the existing literature offers evidence of genuine or apparent amnesia in patients with bvFTD, as assessed via the FCSRT. On 06/19/2021, we conducted a search across four databases (PMC, Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed). We included all studies that evaluated memory performance using the FCSRT in patients with bvFTD, as long as they also included either cognitively unimpaired participants or AD groups. We tested publication bias through the Funnel plot and Egger's test. To assess the quality of studies, we used the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale adapted for cross-sectional studies. We included 16 studies in the meta-analysis. The results showed that bvFTD patients perform better than AD patients (pooled effects between 0.95 and 1.14), as their memory performance stands between AD and control groups (pooled effects between - 2.19 and - 1.25). Moreover, patients with bvFTD present both genuine and secondary memory disorders. As a major limitation of this study, due to our adoption of a rigorous methodology and stringent inclusion criteria, we ended up with just 16 studies. Nonetheless, our robust findings can contribute to the ongoing discussion on international consensus criteria for bvFTD and the selection of appropriate neuropsychological tools to facilitate the differential diagnosis between AD and bvFTD.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Neuropsychology Review
Neuropsychology Review 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
1.70%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Neuropsychology Review is a quarterly, refereed publication devoted to integrative review papers on substantive content areas in neuropsychology, with particular focus on populations with endogenous or acquired conditions affecting brain and function and on translational research providing a mechanistic understanding of clinical problems. Publication of new data is not the purview of the journal. Articles are written by international specialists in the field, discussing such complex issues as distinctive functional features of central nervous system disease and injury; challenges in early diagnosis; the impact of genes and environment on function; risk factors for functional impairment; treatment efficacy of neuropsychological rehabilitation; the role of neuroimaging, neuroelectrophysiology, and other neurometric modalities in explicating function; clinical trial design; neuropsychological function and its substrates characteristic of normal development and aging; and neuropsychological dysfunction and its substrates in neurological, psychiatric, and medical conditions. The journal''s broad perspective is supported by an outstanding, multidisciplinary editorial review board guided by the aim to provide students and professionals, clinicians and researchers with scholarly articles that critically and objectively summarize and synthesize the strengths and weaknesses in the literature and propose novel hypotheses, methods of analysis, and links to other fields.
期刊最新文献
Cognitive Intra-individual Variability in Cognitively Healthy APOE ε4 Carriers, Mild Cognitive Impairment, and Alzheimer's Disease: a Meta-analysis. Measurement Error and Methodologic Issues in Analyses of the Proportion of Variance Explained in Cognition. Implementation of Cognitive (Neuropsychological) Interventions for Older Adults in Clinical or Community Settings: A Scoping Review. Verbal and Spatial Working Memory Capacity in Blind Adults and the Possible Influence of Age at Blindness Onset: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Reliability of Theory of Mind Tasks in Schizophrenia, ASD, and Nonclinical Populations: A Systematic Review and Reliability Generalization Meta-analysis.
×
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