4.7 Review

Systematic review of appropriate cognitive assessment instruments used in clinical trials of schizophrenia, major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder

Journal

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH
Volume 216, Issue 3, Pages 291-302

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2014.02.014

Keywords

Bipolar disorder; Cognitive dysfunction; Cognitive instrument; Major depressive disorder; Schizophrenia

Categories

Funding

  1. Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
  2. Takeda

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cognitive dysfunction is increasingly recognized as a symptom in mental conditions including schizophrenia, major depressive disorder (MDD), and bipolar disorder (BPD). Despite the many available cognitive assessment instruments, consensus is lacking on their appropriate use in clinical trials. We conducted a systematic literature review in Embase, PubMed/Medline and PsychINFO to identify appropriate cognitive function instruments for use in clinical trials of schizophrenia, MDD, and BPD. Instruments were identified from the articles. Instruments and articles were excluded if they did not address schizophrenia, MDD, or BPD. Instrument appropriateness was further assessed by the criteria of the Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (MATRICS) initiative: test-retest reliability, utility, relationship to functional status, potential changeability to pharmacological agents, and tolerability and practicality for clinical trials. The database search yielded 173 articles describing 150 instruments used to assess cognitive function. Seventeen additional instruments were identified through Google and clinicaltrials.gov. Among all these, only 30 (18%) were deemed appropriate for use in the diseases of interest. Of these, 27 were studied in schizophrenia, one in MDD and two in BPD. These findings suggest the need for careful selection of appropriate cognitive assessment instruments, as not all may be valid in these disorders. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available