Similarities and differences across countries in the development of executive functions in children: A systematic review

Abstract Context: People with CHD are at increased risk for executive functioning deficits. Meta-analyses of these measures in CHD patients compared to healthy controls have not been reported. Objective: To examine differences in executive functions in individuals with CHD compared to healthy controls. Data sources: We performed a systematic review of publications from 1 January, 1986 to 15 June, 2020 indexed in PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Study selection: Inclusion criteria were (1) studies containing at least one executive function measure; (2) participants were over the age of three. Data extraction: Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two authors. We used a shifting unit-of-analysis approach and pooled data using a random effects model. Results: The search yielded 61,217 results. Twenty-eight studies met criteria. A total of 7789 people with CHD were compared with 8187 healthy controls. We found the following standardised mean differences: −0.628 (−0.726, −0.531) for cognitive flexibility and set shifting, −0.469 (−0.606, −0.333) for inhibition, −0.369 (−0.466, −0.273) for working memory, −0.334 (−0.546, −0.121) for planning/problem solving, −0.361 (−0.576, −0.147) for summary measures, and −0.444 (−0.614, −0.274) for reporter-based measures (p < 0.001). Limitations: Our analysis consisted of cross-sectional and observational studies. We could not quantify the effect of collinearity. Conclusions: Individuals with CHD appear to have at least moderate deficits in executive functions. Given the growing population of people with CHD, more attention should be devoted to identifying executive dysfunction in this vulnerable group.

Download Full-text

Systematic review of executive functions in children with self-limited epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes

Epilepsy & Behavior ◽

10.1016/j.yebeh.2021.108254 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 123 ◽

pp. 108254

Author(s):

Martina Paola Zanaboni ◽

Costanza Varesio ◽

Ludovica Pasca ◽

Annalisa Foti ◽

Martina Totaro ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Executive Functions

Download Full-text

Supplemental Material for Executive Functions in Fibromyalgia: A Systematic Review

Psychology & Neuroscience ◽

10.1037/pne0000270.supp ◽

2021 ◽

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Executive Functions

Download Full-text

Systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis of the efficacy, safety, and biological effects of psychostimulants and atomoxetine in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder

CNS Spectrums ◽

10.1017/s1092852918001050 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 24 (5) ◽

pp. 479-495 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Marco Solmi ◽

Michele Fornaro ◽

Kuniyoshi Toyoshima ◽

Andrè F. Carvalho ◽

Cristiano A. Köhler ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Problem Solving ◽

Executive Functions ◽

Negative Symptoms ◽

Biological Effects ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cortical Activation ◽

Therapeutic Effects ◽

Double Blind ◽

Relapse Prediction

ObjectiveOur aim was to summarize the efficacy and safety of atomoxetine, amphetamines, and methylphenidate in schizophrenia.MethodsWe undertook a systematic review, searching PubMed/Scopus/Clinicaltrials.gov for double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies of psychostimulants or atomoxetine in schizophrenia published up to 1 January 2017. A meta-analysis of outcomes reported in two or more studies is presented.ResultsWe included 22 studies investigating therapeutic effects of stimulants (k=14) or measuring symptomatic worsening/relapse prediction after stimulant challenge (k=6). Six studies of these two groups plus one additional study investigated biological effects of psychostimulants or atomoxetine. No effect resulted from interventional studies on weight loss (k=1), smoking cessation (k=1), and positive symptoms (k=12), and no improvement was reported with atomoxetine (k=3) for negative symptoms, with equivocal findings for negative (k=6) and mood symptoms (k=2) with amphetamines. Attention, processing speed, working memory, problem solving, and executive functions, among others, showed from no to some improvement with atomoxetine (k=3) or amphetamines (k=6). Meta-analysis did not confirm any effect of stimulants in any symptom domain, including negative symptoms, apart from atomoxetine improving problem solving (k=2, standardized mean difference (SMD)=0.73, 95% CI=0.10–1.36,p=0.02, I2=0%), and trending toward significant improvement in executive functions with amphetamines (k=2, SMD=0.80, 95% CI=−1.68 to +0.08,p=0.08, I2=66%). In challenge studies, amphetamines (k=1) did not worsen symptoms, and methylphenidate (k=5) consistently worsened or predicted relapse. Biological effects of atomoxetine (k=1) and amphetamines (k=1) were cortical activation, without change in β-endorphin (k=1), improved response to antipsychotics after amphetamine challenge (k=2), and an increase of growth hormone–mediated psychosis with methylphenidate (k=2). No major side effects were reported (k=6).ConclusionsNo efficacy for stimulants or atomoxetine on negative symptoms is proven. Atomoxetine or amphetamines may improve cognitive symptoms, while methylphenidate should be avoided in patients with schizophrenia. Insufficient evidence is available to draw firm conclusions.

Download Full-text

Protocols for cognitive enhancement. A user manual for Brain Health Services—part 5 of 6

Alzheimer s Research & Therapy ◽

10.1186/s13195-021-00844-1 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 13 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Andrea Brioschi Guevara ◽

Melanie Bieler ◽

Daniele Altomare ◽

Marcelo Berthier ◽

Chantal Csajka ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Cognitive Impairment ◽

Executive Functions ◽

Cognitive Decline ◽

Physical Training ◽

Cognitive Enhancement ◽

Memory Performance ◽

Subjective Cognitive Decline ◽

Strategic Learning

AbstractCognitive complaints in the absence of objective cognitive impairment, observed in patients with subjective cognitive decline (SCD), are common in old age. The first step to postpone cognitive decline is to use techniques known to improve cognition, i.e., cognitive enhancement techniques.We aimed to provide clinical recommendations to improve cognitive performance in cognitively unimpaired individuals, by using cognitive, mental, or physical training (CMPT), non-invasive brain stimulations (NIBS), drugs, or nutrients. We made a systematic review of CMPT studies based on the GRADE method rating the strength of evidence.CMPT have clinically relevant effects on cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes. The quality of evidence supporting the improvement of outcomes following a CMPT was high for metamemory; moderate for executive functions, attention, global cognition, and generalization in daily life; and low for objective memory, subjective memory, motivation, mood, and quality of life, as well as a transfer to other cognitive functions. Regarding specific interventions, CMPT based on repeated practice (e.g., video games or mindfulness, but not physical training) improved attention and executive functions significantly, while CMPT based on strategic learning significantly improved objective memory.We found encouraging evidence supporting the potential effect of NIBS in improving memory performance, and reducing the perception of self-perceived memory decline in SCD. Yet, the high heterogeneity of stimulation protocols in the different studies prevent the issuing of clear-cut recommendations for implementation in a clinical setting. No conclusive argument was found to recommend any of the main pharmacological cognitive enhancement drugs (“smart drugs”, acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, memantine, antidepressant) or herbal extracts (Panax ginseng, Gingko biloba, and Bacopa monnieri) in people without cognitive impairment.Altogether, this systematic review provides evidence for CMPT to improve cognition, encouraging results for NIBS although more studies are needed, while it does not support the use of drugs or nutrients.

Download Full-text