Examining the effects of household chaos on child executive functions: A meta-analysis.

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 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

Effects and Moderators of Computer-Based Training on Children's Executive Functions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Frontiers in Psychology ◽

10.3389/fpsyg.2020.580329 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 11 ◽

Author(s):

Yifei Cao ◽

Ting Huang ◽

Jipeng Huang ◽

Xiaochun Xie ◽

Yuan Wang

Keyword(s):

Working Memory ◽

Executive Functions ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Typically Developing ◽

Transfer Effects ◽

Training Effects ◽

Computer Based Training ◽

Computer Based ◽

Standard Training ◽

Game Elements

Computer-based training has attracted increasing attention from researchers in recent years. Several studies have found that computer-based training resulted in improved executive functions (EFs) in adults. However, it remains controversial whether children can benefit from computer-based training and what moderator could influence the training effects. The focus of the present meta-analysis was to examine the effects of computer-based training on EFs in children: working memory, cognitive flexibility, and inhibitory control. A thorough search of published work yielded a sample of 36 studies with 216 effect sizes. The results indicated that computer-based training showed moderate training effects on improving EFs in children (g = 0.35, k = 36, p < 0.001), while training effects of working memory were significantly higher. Furthermore, we found near-transfer effects were marginally significantly higher than far-transfer effects. The standard training method was significantly more effective than training with game elements. In computer-based training, typically developing children had significantly better training effects than atypically developing children. Some additional factors, such as the number of training sessions and age, also modulated the training effects. In conclusion, the present study investigated the effects and moderators of computer-based training for children's EFs. The results provided evidence that computer-based training (especially standard training) may serve as an efficient way to improve EFs in children (especially typically developing individuals). We also discussed some directions for future computer-based training studies.

Download Full-text