Alexander Hammant, Tamara Chithiramohan, Victoria Haunton, Lucy Beishon
{"title":"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。","authors":"Alexander Hammant, Tamara Chithiramohan, Victoria Haunton, 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":"{\"title\":\"Cognitive testing following transient ischaemic attack: A systematic review of clinical assessment tools.\",\"authors\":\"Alexander Hammant, Tamara Chithiramohan, Victoria Haunton, 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}","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}
Cognitive testing following transient ischaemic attack: A systematic review of clinical assessment tools.
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.
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.