Tania Dickinson1, Rodrigo Becerra2, Jacqui Coombes3. 1. Clear Health Psychology, Edith Cowan University, 99 Central Avenue, Mount Lawley, Western Australia 6050, Australia. Electronic address: tania@clearhealthpsychology.com.au. 2. School of Psychology and Social Science, Edith Cowan Univeristy, Room 30.129, Building 30, 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, Western Australia 6027, Australia. Electronic address: r.becerra@ecu.edu.au. 3. Centre for Learning and Teaching, Edith Cowan University, Room 5.119, Building 5, 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, Western Australia 6027, Australia. Electronic address: j.coombes@ecu.edu.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Executive functioning (EF) deficits contribute to a significant proportion of the burden of disease associated with bipolar disorder (BD). Yet, there is still debate in the literature regarding the exact profile of executive functioning in BD. The purpose of the present project was to assess whether EF deficits exist among adults suffering BD, and whether these deficits (if apparent) differ by BD subtype. METHODS: A systematic search identified relevant literature. Randomised controlled trials that used neuropsychological assessment to investigate EF among adults 16-65 years) with a remitted DSM diagnosis of BD (type I or II) were included. Studies were published between 1994 and 2015. A systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken. For individual studies, standardised mean differences (Cohen's d) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated and represented in forest plots to illustrate differences in executive performance between groups. Summary effects were produced and tests of heterogeneity employed to assess the dispersion and generalisability of results. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies met criteria for inclusion. Six domains of EF were identified: Set-shifting (SS), inhibition (INH), planning (PLA), verbal fluency (VF), working memory (WM), and attention (ATT). BD1s performed worse than HCs in all domains. BD2s demonstrated impairment in VF, WM, SS, and ATT. The results were mixed for comparisons between BD1s and BD2s, but revealed that BD2s can experience similar (or sometimes greater) EF impairment. LIMITATIONS: Only a limited number of studies that included BD2 samples were available for inclusion in the current study. Subgroup analysis to elucidate potential moderators of within-study variance was not undertaken. CONCLUSION: This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to have compared the EF of remitted BD1s, BD2s, and HCs. The results provided useful insight into the EF profile of patients with BD, and offered commentary as to some of the contradictory results reported in the literature. A standardised methodological protocol for assessment of EF in BD was proposed. The information in this review could enhance our understanding of EF impairment inherent in BD, and the methods and efficacy with which clinicians assess and treat this population.
BACKGROUND: Executive functioning (EF) deficits contribute to a significant proportion of the burden of disease associated with bipolar disorder (BD). Yet, there is still debate in the literature regarding the exact profile of executive functioning in BD. The purpose of the present project was to assess whether EF deficits exist among adults suffering BD, and whether these deficits (if apparent) differ by BD subtype. METHODS: A systematic search identified relevant literature. Randomised controlled trials that used neuropsychological assessment to investigate EF among adults 16-65 years) with a remitted DSM diagnosis of BD (type I or II) were included. Studies were published between 1994 and 2015. A systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken. For individual studies, standardised mean differences (Cohen's d) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated and represented in forest plots to illustrate differences in executive performance between groups. Summary effects were produced and tests of heterogeneity employed to assess the dispersion and generalisability of results. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies met criteria for inclusion. Six domains of EF were identified: Set-shifting (SS), inhibition (INH), planning (PLA), verbal fluency (VF), working memory (WM), and attention (ATT). BD1s performed worse than HCs in all domains. BD2s demonstrated impairment in VF, WM, SS, and ATT. The results were mixed for comparisons between BD1s and BD2s, but revealed that BD2s can experience similar (or sometimes greater) EF impairment. LIMITATIONS: Only a limited number of studies that included BD2 samples were available for inclusion in the current study. Subgroup analysis to elucidate potential moderators of within-study variance was not undertaken. CONCLUSION: This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to have compared the EF of remitted BD1s, BD2s, and HCs. The results provided useful insight into the EF profile of patients with BD, and offered commentary as to some of the contradictory results reported in the literature. A standardised methodological protocol for assessment of EF in BD was proposed. The information in this review could enhance our understanding of EF impairment inherent in BD, and the methods and efficacy with which clinicians assess and treat this population.
Authors: Gabriel G De la Torre; Sandra Doval; David López-Sanz; Manuel García-Sedeño; Miguel A Ramallo; Macarena Bernal; Sara González-Torre Journal: Brain Sci Date: 2021-03-19