4.6 Article

Use of the MATRICS consensus cognitive battery (MCCB) to evaluate cognitive deficits in bipolar disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176212

关键词

-

资金

  1. Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals Clinical Medicine Development of Special Funding Support [ZYLX201403]
  2. Beijing Science and Technology Commission [D121100005012002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition Schizophrenia Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) has also been proposed for use in clinical trials to assess cognitive deficits in patients with bipolar disorder (BD). The aim of this study was to evaluate cognitive function assessed by the MCCB in BD. Methods A literature search of the PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, SCI, Cochrane Library databases and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register was conducted. Case reports, reviews and meta-analyses were excluded and a systematic review of the remaining studies of cognitive function in BD was carried out. The cognitive outcome measure was the MCCB, including 7 domains and overall cognition. A random-effects model was applied. Results Eighty eight studies were initially identified. Seven clinical studies comprising a total of 487 patients and 570 healthy controls (HC) were included in the meta-analysis. Patients with BD performed worse than HC in overall cognition and processing speed with a large effect size of > 0.8; with a medium effect size (0.5 -0.8) in attention, working memory, verbal learning and visual learning; and with a small effect size (0.2 -0.5) in reasoning and problem solving and social cognition. Conclusion Patients with BD performed worse than HC in overall cognition and all cognitive domains of the MCCB. Cognitive deficits in domains of processing speed and working memory are prominent in patients with BD. Our findings suggest that MCCB can be usefully applied in BD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据