4.4 Review

Imaging Markers of Post-Stroke Depression and Apathy: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOLOGY REVIEW
卷 27, 期 3, 页码 202-219

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11065-017-9356-2

关键词

Stroke; Depression; Apathy; Imaging; Systematic review; Meta-analysis

资金

  1. Maastricht University
  2. Health Foundation Limburg
  3. Adriana van Rinsum Ponsen Stichting

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several brain imaging markers have been studied in the development of post-stroke depression (PSD) and post-stroke apathy (PSA), but inconsistent associations have been reported. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date evaluation of imaging markers associated with PSD and PSA. Databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) were searched from inception to July 21, 2016. Observational studies describing imaging markers of PSD and PSA were included. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to examine the association between PSD or PSA and stroke lesion laterality, type, and location, also stratified by study phase (acute, post-acute, chronic). Other imaging markers were reviewed qualitatively. The search retrieved 4502 studies, of which 149 studies were included in the review and 86 studies in the meta-analyses. PSD in the post-acute stroke phase was significantly associated with frontal (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.34-2.19) and basal ganglia lesions (OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.33-3.84). Hemorrhagic stroke related to higher odds for PSA in the acute phase (OR 2.58, 95% CI 1.18-5.65), whereas ischemic stroke related to higher odds for PSA in the post-acute phase (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06-0.69). Frequency of PSD and PSA is modestly associated with stroke type and location and is dependent on stroke phase. These findings have to be taken into consideration for stroke rehabilitation programs, as this could prevent stroke patients from developing PSD and PSA, resulting in better clinical outcome.

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

4.4
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