A systematic review of the clinical use of Withania somnifera (Ashwagandha) to ameliorate cognitive dysfunction

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 583-590 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qin Xiang Ng ◽  
Wayren Loke ◽  
Nadine Xinhui Foo ◽  
Weng Jun Tan ◽  
Hwei Wuen Chan ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Jaime Vilaça ◽  
José Moreira de Azevedo ◽  
Hugo Cardoso Louro ◽  
Jorge Correia Pinto ◽  
Pedro Leão

2012 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamara C. Valovich McLeod ◽  
Candace Leach

Reference/Citation: Alla S, Sullivan SJ, Hale L, McCrory P. Self-report scales/checklists for the measurement of concussion symptoms: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2009;43 (suppl 1):i3–i12. Clinical Question: Which self-report symptom scales or checklists are psychometrically sound for clinical use to assess sport-related concussion? Data Sources: Articles available in full text, published from the establishment of each database through December 2008, were identified from PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, and AMED. Search terms included brain concussion, signs or symptoms, and athletic injuries, in combination with the AND Boolean operator, and were limited to studies published in English. The authors also hand searched the reference lists of retrieved articles. Additional searches of books, conference proceedings, theses, and Web sites of commercial scales were done to provide additional information about the psychometric properties and development for those scales when needed in articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Study Selection: Articles were included if they identified all the items on the scale and the article was either an original research report describing the use of scales in the evaluation of concussion symptoms or a review article that discussed the use or development of concussion symptom scales. Only articles published in English and available in full text were included. Data Extraction: From each study, the following information was extracted by the primary author using a standardized protocol: study design, publication year, participant characteristics, reliability of the scale, and details of the scale or checklist, including name, number of items, time of measurement, format, mode of report, data analysis, scoring, and psychometric properties. A quality assessment of included studies was done using 16 items from the Downs and Black checklist1 and assessed reporting, internal validity, and external validity. Main Results: The initial database search identified 421 articles. After 131 duplicate articles were removed, 290 articles remained and were added to 17 articles found during the hand search, for a total of 307 articles; of those, 295 were available in full text. Sixty articles met the inclusion criteria and were used in the systematic review. The quality of the included studies ranged from 9 to 15 points out of a maximum quality score of 17. The included articles were published between 1995 and 2008 and included a collective total of 5864 concussed athletes and 5032 nonconcussed controls, most of whom participated in American football. The majority of the studies were descriptive studies monitoring the resolution of concussive self-report symptoms compared with either a preseason baseline or healthy control group, with a smaller number of studies (n = 8) investigating the development of a scale. The authors initially identified 20 scales that were used among the 60 included articles. Further review revealed that 14 scales were variations of the Pittsburgh Steelers postconcussion scale (the Post-Concussion Scale, Post-Concussion Scale: Revised, Post-Concussion Scale: ImPACT, Post-Concussion Symptom Scale: Vienna, Graded Symptom Checklist [GSC], Head Injury Scale, McGill ACE Post-Concussion Symptoms Scale, and CogState Sport Symptom Checklist), narrowing down to 6 core scales, which the authors discussed further. The 6 core scales were the Pittsburgh Steelers Post-Concussion Scale (17 items), Post-Concussion Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (10 items), Concussion Resolution Index postconcussion questionnaire (15 items), Signs and Symptoms Checklist (34 items), Sport Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT) postconcussion symptom scale (25 items), and Concussion Symptom Inventory (12 items). Each of the 6 core scales includes symptoms associated with sport-related concussion; however, the number of items on each scale varied. A 7-point Likert scale was used on most scales, with a smaller number using a dichotomous (yes/no) classification. Only 7 of the 20 scales had published psychometric properties, and only 1 scale, the Concussion Symptom Inventory, was empirically driven (Rasch analysis), with development of the scale occurring before its clinical use. Internal consistency (Cronbach α) was reported for the Post-Concussion Scale (.87), Post-Concussion Scale: ImPACT 22-item (.88–.94), Head Injury Scale 9-item (.78), and Head Injury Scale 16-item (.84). Test-retest reliability has been reported only for the Post-Concussion Scale (Spearman r = .55) and the Post-Concussion Scale: ImPACT 21-item (Pearson r = .65). With respect to validity, the SCAT postconcussion scale has demonstrated face and content validity, the Post-Concussion Scale: ImPACT 22-item and Head Injury Scale 9-item have reported construct validity, and the Head Injury Scale 9-item and 16-item have published factorial validity. Sensitivity and specificity have been reported only with the GSC (0.89 and 1.0, respectively) and the Post-Concussion Scale: ImPACT 21-item when combined with the neurocognitive component of ImPACT (0.819 and 0.849, respectively). Meaningful change scores were reported for the Post-Concussion Scale (14.8 points), Post-Concussion Scale: ImPACT 22-item (6.8 points), and Post-Concussion Scale: ImPACT 21-item (standard error of the difference = 7.17; 80% confidence interval = 9.18). Conclusions: Numerous scales exist for measuring the number and severity of concussion-related symptoms, with most evolving from the neuropsychology literature pertaining to head-injured populations. However, very few of these were created in a systematic manner that follows scale development processes and have published psychometric properties. Clinicians need to understand these limitations when choosing and using a symptom scale for inclusion in a concussion assessment battery. Future authors should assess the underlying constructs and measurement properties of currently available scales and use the ever-increasing prospective data pools of concussed athlete information to develop scales following appropriate, systematic processes.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 36
Author(s):  
Marina Zaki ◽  
Marie Galligan ◽  
Lydia O'Sullivan ◽  
Declan Devane ◽  
Eilish McAuliffe

Trials can be defined as prospective human research studies to test the effectiveness and safety of interventions, such as medications, surgeries, medical devices and other interventions for the management of patient care. Statistics is an important and powerful tool in trials. Inappropriately designed trials and/or inappropriate statistical analysis produce unreliable results, with limited clinical use. The aim of this systematic literature review is to identify, describe and synthesise factors contributing to or influencing the statistical planning, design, conduct, analysis and reporting of trials. This protocol will describe the methodological approach taken for the following: conducting a systematic and comprehensive search for relevant articles, applying eligibility criteria for the inclusion of such articles, extracting data and information, appraising the quality of the articles, and thematically synthesizing the data to illuminate the key factors influencing statistical aspects of trials.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xi Zhao ◽  
Ze-qing Huang

Abstract Background Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is a common condition after general anesthesia (GA). Previous studies have reported that propofol can ameliorate the occurrence of such disorder. However, its results are still inconsistent. Therefore, this systematic review will assess the efficacy and safety of propofol on POCD after GA. Methods Literature sources will be sought from inception to the present in Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the administration of propofol on POCD after GA. All searches will be carried out without limitations to language and publication status. Outcomes comprise of cognitive impairments changes, impairments in short-term memory, concentration, language comprehension, social integration, quality of life, and adverse events. Cochrane risk of bias tool will be utilized to assess study quality. We will evaluate the quality of evidence for each outcome using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. A narrative synthesis or a meta-analysis will be undertaken as appropriate. Discussion This study will systematically and comprehensively search literature and integrate evidence on the efficacy and safety of propofol on POCD after GA. Our findings will be of interest to clinicians and health-related policy makers. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020164096


2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Negrini ◽  
Andrew Wu ◽  
Atsushi Oba ◽  
Ben Harnke ◽  
Nicholas Ciancio ◽  
...  

Abstract Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) has been increasingly recognized as a contributor to postoperative complications. A consensus-working group recommended that POCD should be distinguished between delayed cognitive recovery, i.e., evaluations up to 30 days postoperative, and neurocognitive disorder, i.e., assessments performed between 30 days and 12 months after surgery. Additionally, the choice of the anesthetic, either inhalational or total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and its effect on the incidence of POCD, has become a focus of research. Our primary objective was to search the literature and conduct a meta-analysis to verify whether the choice of general anesthesia may impact the incidence of POCD in the first 30 days postoperatively. As a secondary objective, a systematic review of the literature was conducted to estimate the effects of the anesthetic on POCD between 30 days and 12 months postoperative. For the primary objective, an initial review of 1,913 articles yielded 12 studies with a total of 3,639 individuals. For the secondary objective, five studies with a total of 751 patients were selected. In the first 30 days postoperative, the odds-ratio for POCD in TIVA group was 0.60 (95% CI = 0.40 - 0.91; p = 0.02), compared to the inhalational group. TIVA was associated with a lower incidence of POCD in the first 30 days postoperatively. Regarding the secondary objective, due to the small number of selected articles and its high heterogeneity, a metanalysis was not conducted. Giving the heterogeneity of criteria for POCD, future prospective studies with more robust designs should be performed to fully address this question.


2004 ◽  
Vol 97 (8) ◽  
pp. 375-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean Spence ◽  
Richard Stevens ◽  
Randolph Parks

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document