Neuropsychological Changes in Isolated REM Sleep Behavior Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Cross-sectional and Longitudinal Studies.

IF 5.4 2区 心理学 Q1 NEUROSCIENCES
Neuropsychology Review Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-01-02 DOI:10.1007/s11065-022-09572-1
Caterina Leitner, Giada D'Este, Laura Verga, Shady Rahayel, Samantha Mombelli, Marco Sforza, Francesca Casoni, Marco Zucconi, Luigi Ferini-Strambi, Andrea Galbiati
{"title":"Neuropsychological Changes in Isolated REM Sleep Behavior Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Cross-sectional and Longitudinal Studies.","authors":"Caterina Leitner, Giada D'Este, Laura Verga, Shady Rahayel, Samantha Mombelli, Marco Sforza, Francesca Casoni, Marco Zucconi, Luigi Ferini-Strambi, Andrea Galbiati","doi":"10.1007/s11065-022-09572-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this meta-analysis is twofold: (a) to assess cognitive impairments in isolated rapid eye movement (REM) sleep behavior disorder (iRBD) patients compared to healthy controls (HC); (b) to quantitatively estimate the risk of developing a neurodegenerative disease in iRBD patients according to baseline cognitive assessment. To address the first aim, cross-sectional studies including polysomnography-confirmed iRBD patients, HC, and reporting neuropsychological testing were included. To address the second aim, longitudinal studies including polysomnography-confirmed iRBD patients, reporting baseline neuropsychological testing for converted and still isolated patients separately were included. The literature search was conducted based on PRISMA guidelines and the protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42021253427). Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies were searched from PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase databases. Publication bias and statistical heterogeneity were assessed respectively by funnel plot asymmetry and using I<sup>2</sup>. Finally, a random-effect model was performed to pool the included studies. 75 cross-sectional (2,398 HC and 2,460 iRBD patients) and 11 longitudinal (495 iRBD patients) studies were selected. Cross-sectional studies showed that iRBD patients performed significantly worse in cognitive screening scores (random-effects (RE) model = -0.69), memory (RE model = -0.64), and executive function (RE model = -0.50) domains compared to HC. The survival analyses conducted for longitudinal studies revealed that lower executive function and language performance, as well as the presence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), at baseline were associated with an increased risk of conversion at follow-up. Our study underlines the importance of a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment in the context of iRBD.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-022-09572-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The aim of this meta-analysis is twofold: (a) to assess cognitive impairments in isolated rapid eye movement (REM) sleep behavior disorder (iRBD) patients compared to healthy controls (HC); (b) to quantitatively estimate the risk of developing a neurodegenerative disease in iRBD patients according to baseline cognitive assessment. To address the first aim, cross-sectional studies including polysomnography-confirmed iRBD patients, HC, and reporting neuropsychological testing were included. To address the second aim, longitudinal studies including polysomnography-confirmed iRBD patients, reporting baseline neuropsychological testing for converted and still isolated patients separately were included. The literature search was conducted based on PRISMA guidelines and the protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42021253427). Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies were searched from PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase databases. Publication bias and statistical heterogeneity were assessed respectively by funnel plot asymmetry and using I2. Finally, a random-effect model was performed to pool the included studies. 75 cross-sectional (2,398 HC and 2,460 iRBD patients) and 11 longitudinal (495 iRBD patients) studies were selected. Cross-sectional studies showed that iRBD patients performed significantly worse in cognitive screening scores (random-effects (RE) model = -0.69), memory (RE model = -0.64), and executive function (RE model = -0.50) domains compared to HC. The survival analyses conducted for longitudinal studies revealed that lower executive function and language performance, as well as the presence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), at baseline were associated with an increased risk of conversion at follow-up. Our study underlines the importance of a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment in the context of iRBD.

Abstract Image

孤立快速眼动睡眠行为障碍的神经心理学变化:横断面和纵向研究的系统回顾和元分析》。
这项荟萃分析有两个目的:(a)评估孤立性快速眼动(REM)睡眠行为障碍(iRBD)患者与健康对照组(HC)相比存在的认知障碍;(b)根据基线认知评估定量估计 iRBD 患者罹患神经退行性疾病的风险。为实现第一个目标,纳入了包括经多导睡眠图确认的 iRBD 患者、HC 和报告神经心理学测试的横断面研究。为实现第二个目标,纳入了包括经多导睡眠图确认的 iRBD 患者的纵向研究,这些研究分别报告了转化患者和仍处于隔离状态的患者的基线神经心理学测试结果。文献检索根据 PRISMA 指南进行,方案已在 PROSPERO(CRD42021253427)上注册。在 PubMed、Web of Science、Scopus 和 Embase 数据库中检索了横断面和纵向研究。通过漏斗图不对称和 I2 分别评估了发表偏倚和统计异质性。最后,采用随机效应模型对纳入的研究进行汇总。共筛选出 75 项横断面研究(2,398 名 HC 患者和 2,460 名 iRBD 患者)和 11 项纵向研究(495 名 iRBD 患者)。横断面研究显示,与 HC 相比,iRBD 患者在认知筛查得分(随机效应 (RE) 模型 = -0.69)、记忆(RE 模型 = -0.64)和执行功能(RE 模型 = -0.50)领域的表现明显较差。对纵向研究进行的生存分析表明,基线时较低的执行功能和语言表现以及轻度认知障碍(MCI)的存在与随访时转换风险的增加有关。我们的研究强调了对 iRBD 进行全面神经心理学评估的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neuropsychology Review
Neuropsychology Review 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
1.70%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Neuropsychology Review is a quarterly, refereed publication devoted to integrative review papers on substantive content areas in neuropsychology, with particular focus on populations with endogenous or acquired conditions affecting brain and function and on translational research providing a mechanistic understanding of clinical problems. Publication of new data is not the purview of the journal. Articles are written by international specialists in the field, discussing such complex issues as distinctive functional features of central nervous system disease and injury; challenges in early diagnosis; the impact of genes and environment on function; risk factors for functional impairment; treatment efficacy of neuropsychological rehabilitation; the role of neuroimaging, neuroelectrophysiology, and other neurometric modalities in explicating function; clinical trial design; neuropsychological function and its substrates characteristic of normal development and aging; and neuropsychological dysfunction and its substrates in neurological, psychiatric, and medical conditions. The journal''s broad perspective is supported by an outstanding, multidisciplinary editorial review board guided by the aim to provide students and professionals, clinicians and researchers with scholarly articles that critically and objectively summarize and synthesize the strengths and weaknesses in the literature and propose novel hypotheses, methods of analysis, and links to other fields.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信