Comparison of Cognitive Screening Tools Used to Assess Neurocognitive Side Effects of Electroconvulsive Therapy: A Systematic Review.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Jeremy Dodd, Emma Brown, Lars Eriksson, Simone Garrett-Walcott, Subramanian Purushothaman, Donel Martin, Stephen Parker, Mark Vickers
{"title":"Comparison of Cognitive Screening Tools Used to Assess Neurocognitive Side Effects of Electroconvulsive Therapy: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Jeremy Dodd, Emma Brown, Lars Eriksson, Simone Garrett-Walcott, Subramanian Purushothaman, Donel Martin, Stephen Parker, Mark Vickers","doi":"10.1097/YCT.0000000000001181","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This systematic review identified and critically appraised existing research comparing cognitive screening tools used to assess neurocognitive side effects of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines and the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) reporting guideline. A protocol was registered with the Open Sciences Network (OSF) registry, and critical appraisal was completed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies. Pragmatic criteria were applied to assess relative strengths and weaknesses of the identified cognitive screening tools for application to clinical practice. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria; 2 ECT-specific cognitive screening tools, 2 generalised cognitive screening tools, 4 neurocognitive batteries, and 1 brief memory scale. The ECT-specific cognitive screening tools were the Brief ECT Cognitive Screen (BECS) and the ElectroConvulsive Therapy Cognitive Assessment (ECCA). The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was the most common generalised cognitive screening tool used. The BECS and ECCA scored the highest using our specific pragmatic criteria. Key limitations across the included studies were the lack of a suitable gold standard comparator and inadequate blinding of assessors. There is limited evidence to support the superiority of one cognitive tool over another for assessing neurocognitive side effects associated with ECT. The primary limitations across the current literature base are the lack of a gold standard reference tool and heterogeneity of included populations. There is a need for further research to validate the sensitivity and specificity of tools such as the BECS and ECCA.</p>","PeriodicalId":54844,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ect","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ect","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/YCT.0000000000001181","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This systematic review identified and critically appraised existing research comparing cognitive screening tools used to assess neurocognitive side effects of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines and the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) reporting guideline. A protocol was registered with the Open Sciences Network (OSF) registry, and critical appraisal was completed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies. Pragmatic criteria were applied to assess relative strengths and weaknesses of the identified cognitive screening tools for application to clinical practice. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria; 2 ECT-specific cognitive screening tools, 2 generalised cognitive screening tools, 4 neurocognitive batteries, and 1 brief memory scale. The ECT-specific cognitive screening tools were the Brief ECT Cognitive Screen (BECS) and the ElectroConvulsive Therapy Cognitive Assessment (ECCA). The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was the most common generalised cognitive screening tool used. The BECS and ECCA scored the highest using our specific pragmatic criteria. Key limitations across the included studies were the lack of a suitable gold standard comparator and inadequate blinding of assessors. There is limited evidence to support the superiority of one cognitive tool over another for assessing neurocognitive side effects associated with ECT. The primary limitations across the current literature base are the lack of a gold standard reference tool and heterogeneity of included populations. There is a need for further research to validate the sensitivity and specificity of tools such as the BECS and ECCA.

用于评估电休克治疗神经认知副作用的认知筛查工具的比较:一项系统综述。
本系统综述确定并批判性地评价了比较用于评估电休克治疗(ECT)神经认知副作用的认知筛查工具的现有研究。按照系统评价首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南和无meta分析综合(SWiM)报告指南进行系统评价。在开放科学网络(OSF)注册中心注册了一份方案,并使用Joanna Briggs研究所诊断测试准确性研究关键评估工具完成了关键评估。应用实用标准来评估已确定的认知筛查工具在临床实践中的相对优势和劣势。9项研究符合纳入标准;2个ect特异性认知筛查工具,2个通用认知筛查工具,4个神经认知电池,1个简短记忆量表。ECT特异性的认知筛查工具是简短ECT认知筛查(BECS)和电痉挛治疗认知评估(ECCA)。蒙特利尔认知评估(MoCA)是最常用的通用认知筛查工具。使用我们具体的实用标准,BECS和ECCA得分最高。纳入研究的主要限制是缺乏合适的金标准比较物和评估人员的盲法不足。有有限的证据支持一种认知工具优于另一种评估ECT相关神经认知副作用的工具。目前文献基础的主要限制是缺乏金标准参考工具和纳入人群的异质性。需要进一步的研究来验证BECS和ECCA等工具的敏感性和特异性。
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
Journal of Ect
Journal of Ect 医学-行为科学
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
20.00%
发文量
154
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: ​The Journal of ECT covers all aspects of contemporary electroconvulsive therapy, reporting on major clinical and research developments worldwide. Leading clinicians and researchers examine the effects of induced seizures on behavior and on organ systems; review important research results on the mode of induction, occurrence, and propagation of seizures; and explore the difficult sociological, ethical, and legal issues concerning the use of ECT.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信