4.6 Article

Executive Dysfunction in OSA Before and After Treatment: A Meta-Analysis

期刊

SLEEP
卷 36, 期 9, 页码 1297-1305

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.5665/sleep.2950

关键词

Obstructive sleep apnea; executive function; cognition; neuropsychology; review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study Objectives: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a frequent and often underdiagnosed condition that is associated with upper airway collapse, oxygen desaturation, and sleep fragmentation leading to cognitive dysfunction. There is meta-analytic evidence that sub-domains of attention and memory are affected by OSA. However, a thorough investigation of the impact of OSA on different sub-domains of executive function is yet to be conducted. This report investigates the impact of OSA and its treatment, in adult patients, on 5 theorized sub-domains of executive function. Design: An extensive literature search was conducted of published and unpublished materials, returning 35 studies that matched selection criteria. Meta-analysis was used to synthesize the results from studies examining the impact of OSA on executive functioning compared to controls (21 studies), and before and after treatment (19 studies); 5 studies met inclusion in both categories. Measurements: Research papers were selected which assessed 5 sub-domains of executive function: Shifting, Updating, Inhibition, Generativity, and Fluid Reasoning. Results: All 5 domains of executive function demonstrated medium to very large impairments in OSA independent of age and disease severity. Furthermore, all sub-domains of executive function demonstrated small to medium improvements with CPAP treatment. Discussion: Executive function is impaired across all five domains in OSA; these difficulties improved with CPAP treatment. Age and disease severity did not moderate the effects found; however, further studies are needed to explore the extent of primary and secondary effects, and the impact of age and premorbid intellectual ability (cognitive reserve).

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