scholarly journals Is Cognitive Training Effective for Improving Executive Functions in Preschoolers? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicoletta Scionti ◽  
Marina Cavallero ◽  
Cristina Zogmaister ◽  
Gian Marco Marzocchi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Executive Functions ◽  
Cognitive Training ◽  
Meta Analysis

Executive functions in children with heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
William M. Jackson ◽  
Nicholas Davis ◽  
Johanna Calderon ◽  
Jennifer J. Lee ◽  
Nicole Feirsen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Executive Functions ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Executive Dysfunction ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Planning Problem ◽  
Healthy Controls ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Increased Risk

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.

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 ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 479-495 ◽  
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.

scholarly journals The Effects of Combined Physical and Cognitive Training on Inhibitory Control: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sakshi Dhir ◽  
Wei-Peng Teo ◽  
Samuel R. Chamberlain ◽  
Kaelasha Tyler ◽  
Murat Yücel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cognitive Training ◽  
Inhibitory Control ◽  
Meta Analysis
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document