A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Use of the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery in Clinical Populations.

IF 5 2区心理学 Q1 NEUROSCIENCES

Neuropsychology Review Pub Date : 2025-07-07 DOI:10.1007/s11065-025-09669-3

Kelly H Watson, Abagail E Ciriegio, Claire F Miller, Marissa C Roth, Bruce E Compas

{"title":"A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Use of the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery in Clinical Populations.","authors":"Kelly H Watson, Abagail E Ciriegio, Claire F Miller, Marissa C Roth, Bruce E Compas","doi":"10.1007/s11065-025-09669-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) is an assessment tool that has been widely utilized in research with clinical populations across the lifespan. Despite its widespread use, a systematic review and meta-analysis of cognitive function utilizing this battery in clinical samples has not been reported. To address this gap, 84 studies were identified after systematically searching PsycINFO, PubMed, and ProQuest (71 peer-reviewed articles, 11 dissertations, 2 master's theses) comprising 6331 clinical participants. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Results identified significant deficits in the Fluid Cognition Composite and the associated subtests (attention, working memory, processing speed, executive function) in clinical samples when compared to both the NIHTB-CB normative data and recruited comparison samples. Unexpectedly, there was some evidence that clinical participants scored higher on Crystallized Cognition subtests than the normative data but scored significantly lower than recruited controls. There was mixed evidence for performance differences on a Total Cognition Composite measure of cognitive function. There was some evidence of publication bias, and results were moderated by study quality and participant demographics. The implications of the findings for clinical research settings are discussed and suggested future directions are provided.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-07","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/s11065-025-09669-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) is an assessment tool that has been widely utilized in research with clinical populations across the lifespan. Despite its widespread use, a systematic review and meta-analysis of cognitive function utilizing this battery in clinical samples has not been reported. To address this gap, 84 studies were identified after systematically searching PsycINFO, PubMed, and ProQuest (71 peer-reviewed articles, 11 dissertations, 2 master's theses) comprising 6331 clinical participants. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Results identified significant deficits in the Fluid Cognition Composite and the associated subtests (attention, working memory, processing speed, executive function) in clinical samples when compared to both the NIHTB-CB normative data and recruited comparison samples. Unexpectedly, there was some evidence that clinical participants scored higher on Crystallized Cognition subtests than the normative data but scored significantly lower than recruited controls. There was mixed evidence for performance differences on a Total Cognition Composite measure of cognitive function. There was some evidence of publication bias, and results were moderated by study quality and participant demographics. The implications of the findings for clinical research settings are discussed and suggested future directions are provided.

查看原文本刊更多论文

临床人群使用美国国立卫生研究院工具箱认知电池的系统回顾和荟萃分析。

美国国立卫生研究院工具箱认知电池（NIHTB-CB）是一种评估工具，已广泛应用于临床人群的研究中。尽管它被广泛使用，但在临床样本中使用这种电池的认知功能的系统回顾和荟萃分析尚未报道。为了解决这一差距，在系统地检索PsycINFO、PubMed和ProQuest后，确定了84项研究（71篇同行评审文章，11篇论文，2篇硕士论文），包括6331名临床参与者。使用QUADAS-2工具评估研究质量。结果发现，与NIHTB-CB标准数据和招募的比较样本相比，临床样本的流体认知复合测试和相关子测试（注意力、工作记忆、处理速度、执行功能）存在显著缺陷。出乎意料的是，有一些证据表明，临床参与者在结晶认知子测试中的得分高于规范数据，但得分明显低于招募的对照组。在认知功能的总认知综合测量中，表现差异的证据是混合的。有一些证据表明存在发表偏倚，结果受到研究质量和参与者人口统计数据的影响。研究结果对临床研究环境的影响进行了讨论，并提出了未来的发展方向。

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 医学-神经科学

CiteScore

11.00

自引率

1.70%

发文量

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.