Hannaford Edwards1, Annie Duchesne2, April S Au1, Gillian Einstein1. 1. Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 2. Department of Psychology, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Recent evidence suggests that early or induced menopause increases the risk for cognitive impairment and dementia. Given the potential for different cognitive outcomes due to menopause types, it is important that present research on menopause and cognition distinguishes between types. The aim of this project was to determine to what extent research looking at cognition in postmenopausal women published in one year, 2016, accounted for menopausal type. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsychINFO using keywords and MeSH terms for menopause and cognition. We included any research paper reporting a cognitive outcome measure in a menopausal human population. Differentiation between the types of menopause was defined by four categories: undifferentiated, demographic differentiation (menopause type reported but not analyzed), partial differentiation (some but not all types analyzed), and full differentiation (menopause types factored into analysis, or recruitment of only one type). RESULTS: Fifty research articles were found and analyzed. Differentiation was distributed as follows: undifferentiated, 38% (19 articles); demographic differentiation, 16% (8); partial differentiation, 28% (14); and full differentiation, 18% (9). CONCLUSIONS: This review revealed that although some clinical studies differentiated between the many menopauses, most did not. This may limit their relevance to clinical practice. We found that when menopause types are distinguished, the differing cognitive outcomes of each type are clarified, yielding the strongest evidence, which in turn will be able to inform best clinical practice for treating all women.
OBJECTIVE: Recent evidence suggests that early or induced menopause increases the risk for cognitive impairment and dementia. Given the potential for different cognitive outcomes due to menopause types, it is important that present research on menopause and cognition distinguishes between types. The aim of this project was to determine to what extent research looking at cognition in postmenopausal women published in one year, 2016, accounted for menopausal type. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsychINFO using keywords and MeSH terms for menopause and cognition. We included any research paper reporting a cognitive outcome measure in a menopausal human population. Differentiation between the types of menopause was defined by four categories: undifferentiated, demographic differentiation (menopause type reported but not analyzed), partial differentiation (some but not all types analyzed), and full differentiation (menopause types factored into analysis, or recruitment of only one type). RESULTS: Fifty research articles were found and analyzed. Differentiation was distributed as follows: undifferentiated, 38% (19 articles); demographic differentiation, 16% (8); partial differentiation, 28% (14); and full differentiation, 18% (9). CONCLUSIONS: This review revealed that although some clinical studies differentiated between the many menopauses, most did not. This may limit their relevance to clinical practice. We found that when menopause types are distinguished, the differing cognitive outcomes of each type are clarified, yielding the strongest evidence, which in turn will be able to inform best clinical practice for treating all women.
Authors: Riley Bove; Elizabeth Secor; Lori B Chibnik; Lisa L Barnes; Julie A Schneider; David A Bennett; Philip L De Jager Journal: Neurology Date: 2013-12-11 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Sheila Shanmugan; James Loughead; Ravi Prakash Reddy Nanga; Mark Elliott; Hari Hariharan; Dina Appleby; Deborah Kim; Kosha Ruparel; Ravinder Reddy; Thomas E Brown; C Neill Epperson Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2016-08-23 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Aladdin H Shadyab; Caroline A Macera; Richard A Shaffer; Sonia Jain; Linda C Gallo; Margery L S Gass; Molly E Waring; Marcia L Stefanick; Andrea Z LaCroix Journal: Menopause Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Mark A Espeland; Stephen R Rapp; JoAnn E Manson; Joseph S Goveas; Sally A Shumaker; Kathleen M Hayden; Julie C Weitlauf; Sarah A Gaussoin; Laura D Baker; Claudia B Padula; Lifang Hou; Susan M Resnick Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Alexandra Tijerina; Yamile Barrera; Elizabeth Solis-Pérez; Rogelio Salas; José L Jasso; Verónica López; Erik Ramírez; Rosario Pastor; Josep A Tur; Cristina Bouzas Journal: Nutrients Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 6.706
Authors: Stephanie V Koebele; Ryoko Hiroi; Zachary M T Plumley; Ryan Melikian; Alesia V Prakapenka; Shruti Patel; Catherine Carson; Destiney Kirby; Sarah E Mennenga; Loretta P Mayer; Cheryl A Dyer; Heather A Bimonte-Nelson Journal: Front Behav Neurosci Date: 2021-07-21 Impact factor: 3.558