Cognitive performance in functional seizures compared with epilepsy and healthy controls: a systematic review and meta analysis.

IF 30.8 1区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Ryan Van Patten, Tara A Austin, Erica Cotton, Lawrence Chan, John A Bellone, Kristen Mordecai, Hamada Altalib, Stephen Correia, Elizabeth W Twamley, Richard N Jones, Kelsey Sawyer, W Curt LaFrance
{"title":"Cognitive performance in functional seizures compared with epilepsy and healthy controls: a systematic review and meta analysis.","authors":"Ryan Van Patten, Tara A Austin, Erica Cotton, Lawrence Chan, John A Bellone, Kristen Mordecai, Hamada Altalib, Stephen Correia, Elizabeth W Twamley, Richard N Jones, Kelsey Sawyer, W Curt LaFrance","doi":"10.1016/S2215-0366(24)00132-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cognition is a core component of functional seizures, but the literature on cognition in this disorder has been heterogeneous, with no clear unifying profile emerging from individual studies. The aim of this study was to do a systematic review and meta-analysis of cognitive performance in adults with functional seizures compared with epilepsy (including left temporal lobe epilepsy) and compared with healthy non-seizure cohorts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this systematic review and meta-analysis, starting Feb 6, 2023, replicated and updated on Oct 31, 2023, a medical librarian searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Inclusion criteria were full reports documenting raw or standardised cognitive test data in adults with functional seizures compared with adults with epilepsy, prospectively recruited healthy comparisons, or published norms. Grey literature was retained and there were no language or date restrictions. We excluded studies only reporting on mixed functional seizures and epilepsy, or mixed functional neurological samples, with no pure functional seizures group. Risk of bias was evaluated using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. People with lived experiences were not involved in the design or execution of this study. This study is registered as CRD42023392385 in PROSPERO.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Of 3834 records initially identified, 84 articles were retained, including 8654 participants (functional seizures 4193, epilepsy 3638, and healthy comparisons 823). Mean age was 36 years (SD 12) for functional seizures, 36 years (12) for epilepsy, and 34 years (10) for healthy comparisons, and the proportion of women per group was 72% (range 18-100) for functional seizures, 59% (range 15-100) for epilepsy, and 69% (range 34-100) for healthy comparisons. Data on race or ethnicity were rarely reported in the individual studies. Risk of bias was moderate. Cognitive performance was better in people with functional seizures than those with epilepsy (Hedges' g=0·17 [95% CI 0·10-0·25)], p<0·0001), with moderate-to-high heterogeneity (Q[56]=128·91, p=0·0001, I<sup>2</sup>=57%). The functional seizures group performed better than the epilepsy group on global cognition and intelligence quotient (g=0·15 [0·02-0·28], p=0·022) and language (g=0·28 [0·14-0·43], p=0·0001), but not other cognitive domains. A larger effect was noted in language tests when comparing functional seizures with left temporal lobe epilepsy (k=5; g=0·51 [0·10 to 0·91], p=0·015). The functional seizures group underperformed relative to healthy comparisons (g=-0·61 [-0·78 to -0·44], p<0·0001), with significant differences in all cognitive domains. Meta regressions examining effects of multiple covariates on global cognition were not significant.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Patients with functional seizures have widespread cognitive impairments that are likely to be clinically meaningful on the basis of moderate effect sizes in multiple domains. These deficits might be slightly less severe than those seen in many patients with epilepsy but nevertheless argue for consideration of clinical assessment and treatment.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration.</p>","PeriodicalId":48784,"journal":{"name":"Lancet Psychiatry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":30.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lancet Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(24)00132-9","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cognition is a core component of functional seizures, but the literature on cognition in this disorder has been heterogeneous, with no clear unifying profile emerging from individual studies. The aim of this study was to do a systematic review and meta-analysis of cognitive performance in adults with functional seizures compared with epilepsy (including left temporal lobe epilepsy) and compared with healthy non-seizure cohorts.

Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, starting Feb 6, 2023, replicated and updated on Oct 31, 2023, a medical librarian searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Inclusion criteria were full reports documenting raw or standardised cognitive test data in adults with functional seizures compared with adults with epilepsy, prospectively recruited healthy comparisons, or published norms. Grey literature was retained and there were no language or date restrictions. We excluded studies only reporting on mixed functional seizures and epilepsy, or mixed functional neurological samples, with no pure functional seizures group. Risk of bias was evaluated using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. People with lived experiences were not involved in the design or execution of this study. This study is registered as CRD42023392385 in PROSPERO.

Findings: Of 3834 records initially identified, 84 articles were retained, including 8654 participants (functional seizures 4193, epilepsy 3638, and healthy comparisons 823). Mean age was 36 years (SD 12) for functional seizures, 36 years (12) for epilepsy, and 34 years (10) for healthy comparisons, and the proportion of women per group was 72% (range 18-100) for functional seizures, 59% (range 15-100) for epilepsy, and 69% (range 34-100) for healthy comparisons. Data on race or ethnicity were rarely reported in the individual studies. Risk of bias was moderate. Cognitive performance was better in people with functional seizures than those with epilepsy (Hedges' g=0·17 [95% CI 0·10-0·25)], p<0·0001), with moderate-to-high heterogeneity (Q[56]=128·91, p=0·0001, I2=57%). The functional seizures group performed better than the epilepsy group on global cognition and intelligence quotient (g=0·15 [0·02-0·28], p=0·022) and language (g=0·28 [0·14-0·43], p=0·0001), but not other cognitive domains. A larger effect was noted in language tests when comparing functional seizures with left temporal lobe epilepsy (k=5; g=0·51 [0·10 to 0·91], p=0·015). The functional seizures group underperformed relative to healthy comparisons (g=-0·61 [-0·78 to -0·44], p<0·0001), with significant differences in all cognitive domains. Meta regressions examining effects of multiple covariates on global cognition were not significant.

Interpretation: Patients with functional seizures have widespread cognitive impairments that are likely to be clinically meaningful on the basis of moderate effect sizes in multiple domains. These deficits might be slightly less severe than those seen in many patients with epilepsy but nevertheless argue for consideration of clinical assessment and treatment.

Funding: Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration.

功能性癫痫发作与癫痫和健康对照组的认知表现比较:系统综述和元分析。
背景:认知是功能性癫痫发作的一个核心组成部分,但有关这种疾病认知的文献却不尽相同,单项研究中没有出现明确的统一特征。本研究旨在对成人功能性癫痫发作患者的认知表现进行系统回顾和荟萃分析,并与癫痫(包括左侧颞叶癫痫)和健康的非癫痫发作队列进行比较:在这项系统综述和荟萃分析中,一位医学图书管理员从 2023 年 2 月 6 日开始检索 MEDLINE、Embase、PsycINFO 和 Web of Science,并于 2023 年 10 月 31 日进行了复制和更新。纳入标准是记录了功能性癫痫成人患者与癫痫成人患者、前瞻性招募的健康对比者或已发表的标准的原始或标准化认知测试数据的完整报告。我们保留了灰色文献,并且没有语言或日期限制。我们排除了只报告混合功能性癫痫发作和癫痫的研究,或没有纯功能性癫痫发作组的混合功能性神经样本的研究。偏倚风险采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表的修订版进行评估。有生活经验的人没有参与本研究的设计和实施。本研究在 PROSPERO.Findings 中注册为 CRD42023392385:在最初确定的 3834 条记录中,保留了 84 篇文章,包括 8654 名参与者(功能性癫痫发作 4193 人,癫痫 3638 人,健康比较 823 人)。功能性癫痫发作的平均年龄为 36 岁(SD 12),癫痫为 36 岁(SD 12),健康比较为 34 岁(SD 10),每组女性比例为:功能性癫痫发作 72%(18-100 岁不等),癫痫 59%(15-100 岁不等),健康比较 69%(34-100 岁不等)。个别研究很少报告种族或民族数据。偏倚风险为中度。功能性癫痫发作患者的认知表现优于癫痫患者(Hedges' g=0-17 [95% CI 0-10-0-25)], p2=57%)。功能性癫痫发作组在整体认知和智商(g=0-15 [0-02-0-28],p=0-022)以及语言(g=0-28 [0-14-0-43],p=0-0001)方面的表现优于癫痫组,但在其他认知领域的表现则不尽相同。在比较功能性癫痫发作和左颞叶癫痫时,发现语言测试的影响更大(k=5;g=0-51 [0-10 至 0-91],p=0-015)。与健康人相比,功能性癫痫发作组表现不佳(g=-0-61 [-0-78 to -0-44],p解释:功能性癫痫发作患者有广泛的认知障碍,根据多个领域的中等效应大小,这些障碍可能具有临床意义。这些缺陷的严重程度可能略低于许多癫痫患者,但仍需要考虑进行临床评估和治疗:退伍军人事务部、退伍军人健康管理局。
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
Lancet Psychiatry
Lancet Psychiatry PSYCHIATRY-
CiteScore
58.30
自引率
0.90%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Lancet Psychiatry is a globally renowned and trusted resource for groundbreaking research in the field of psychiatry. We specialize in publishing original studies that contribute to transforming and shedding light on important aspects of psychiatric practice. Our comprehensive coverage extends to diverse topics including psychopharmacology, psychotherapy, and psychosocial approaches that address psychiatric disorders throughout the lifespan. We aim to channel innovative treatments and examine the biological research that forms the foundation of such advancements. Our journal also explores novel service delivery methods and promotes fresh perspectives on mental illness, emphasizing the significant contributions of social psychiatry.
×
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