The Relationship Between the Menstrual Cycle, Oral Contraceptives, and Executive Function – Inhibition, Updating, and Shifting

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
Melanie Kowalczyk, M. Kornacka, K. Wisiecka, Agnieszka Młyniec, Anna Redeł, Maria Szwykowska-Ziemniak, Izabela Krejtz
{"title":"The Relationship Between the Menstrual Cycle, Oral Contraceptives, and Executive Function – Inhibition, Updating, and Shifting","authors":"Melanie Kowalczyk, M. Kornacka, K. Wisiecka, Agnieszka Młyniec, Anna Redeł, Maria Szwykowska-Ziemniak, Izabela Krejtz","doi":"10.1027/1016-9040/a000514","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: Previous research suggests a link between oral contraceptives and cognitive functioning in women, yet the results are contradictory and limited by methodological inconsistencies. This is the first meta-analysis of studies comparing naturally cycling women with women taking oral contraceptives on measures testing three executive functions: inhibition, updating, and shifting. We conducted a systematic literature search. Sixteen articles were included which were either cross-sectional or experimental and compared executive functions between women taking oral contraceptives ( n = 588) or cycling naturally ( n = 594). The average sample size was n = 32.33 for oral contraceptives users and n = 31.34 for naturally cycling women with ranges going from 8 to 144 participants per study. The age range of participants in all the studies taken together was between 18 for the youngest participant and 50 years old for the oldest participant with a mean age of M = 21.97, SD = 2.28. The studies presented a mixture of androgenic and anti-androgenic oral contraceptives which were rarely analyzed as separate groups. We ran a multivariate meta-analysis model to estimate the effect size of 66 comparisons in executive functioning between the groups taking oral contraceptives and the groups of naturally cycling women. Overall, the effect size of differences in executive functioning between groups was not significant: d = 0.044, SE = 0.0713, 95% CI [−0.0959, 0.1839], z = 0.62; p = 0.54. The analysis of the cycle phases and types of executive functions as moderators was not significant, however, the studies assessed as having a lower quality increased the overall effect. Our analysis indicates no difference between oral contraceptive users and naturally cycling women on core executive functions but the high amount of heterogeneity might reflect a high level of methodological diversity. Implications for research design and methodology are discussed.","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000514","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract: Previous research suggests a link between oral contraceptives and cognitive functioning in women, yet the results are contradictory and limited by methodological inconsistencies. This is the first meta-analysis of studies comparing naturally cycling women with women taking oral contraceptives on measures testing three executive functions: inhibition, updating, and shifting. We conducted a systematic literature search. Sixteen articles were included which were either cross-sectional or experimental and compared executive functions between women taking oral contraceptives ( n = 588) or cycling naturally ( n = 594). The average sample size was n = 32.33 for oral contraceptives users and n = 31.34 for naturally cycling women with ranges going from 8 to 144 participants per study. The age range of participants in all the studies taken together was between 18 for the youngest participant and 50 years old for the oldest participant with a mean age of M = 21.97, SD = 2.28. The studies presented a mixture of androgenic and anti-androgenic oral contraceptives which were rarely analyzed as separate groups. We ran a multivariate meta-analysis model to estimate the effect size of 66 comparisons in executive functioning between the groups taking oral contraceptives and the groups of naturally cycling women. Overall, the effect size of differences in executive functioning between groups was not significant: d = 0.044, SE = 0.0713, 95% CI [−0.0959, 0.1839], z = 0.62; p = 0.54. The analysis of the cycle phases and types of executive functions as moderators was not significant, however, the studies assessed as having a lower quality increased the overall effect. Our analysis indicates no difference between oral contraceptive users and naturally cycling women on core executive functions but the high amount of heterogeneity might reflect a high level of methodological diversity. Implications for research design and methodology are discussed.
月经周期、口服避孕药和执行功能之间的关系--抑制、更新和转移
摘要:以往的研究表明,口服避孕药与女性的认知功能之间存在联系,但研究结果相互矛盾,且因方法不一致而受到限制。这是首次对自然周期女性与口服避孕药女性在抑制、更新和转移三种执行功能测试方面的比较研究进行荟萃分析。我们进行了系统的文献检索。共收录了 16 篇文章,这些文章或为横断面研究,或为实验研究,比较了服用口服避孕药(n = 588)或自然循环(n = 594)的女性的执行功能。口服避孕药妇女的平均样本量为 n = 32.33,自然骑自行车妇女的平均样本量为 n = 31.34,每项研究的参与者人数从 8 人到 144 人不等。所有研究的参与者年龄范围加在一起,最小的 18 岁,最大的 50 岁,平均年龄为 M = 21.97,SD = 2.28。这些研究混合使用了雄激素和抗雄激素口服避孕药,很少将其作为单独的组别进行分析。我们运行了一个多变量荟萃分析模型,以估计服用口服避孕药组和自然周期妇女组之间在执行功能方面的 66 项比较的效应大小。总体而言,组间执行功能差异的效应大小不显著:d = 0.044,SE = 0.0713,95% CI [-0.0959,0.1839],z = 0.62;p = 0.54。作为调节因子的周期阶段和执行功能类型的分析结果并不显著,但是,被评估为质量较低的研究增加了总体效应。我们的分析表明,口服避孕药使用者和自然周期妇女在核心执行功能方面没有差异,但高度异质性可能反映了方法的高度多样性。本文讨论了研究设计和方法的意义。
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
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
×
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