Evidence Hub

Neuropsychological and neuroimaging underpinnings of schizoaffective disorder: a systematic review

Madre M, Canales-Rodríguez EJ, Ortiz-Gil J, Murru A, Torrent C, Bramon E, Perez V, Orth M et al.

Acta psychiatrica Scandinavica, 2016

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The neurobiological basis and nosological status of schizoaffective disorder remains elusive and controversial. This study provides a systematic review of neurocognitive and neuroimaging findings in the disorder.

METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted via PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus and Web of Knowledge (from 1949 to 31st March 2015) using the keyword 'schizoaffective disorder' and any of the following terms: 'neuropsychology', 'cognition', 'structural neuroimaging', 'functional neuroimaging', 'multimodal', 'DTI' and 'VBM'. Only studies that explicitly examined a well defined sample, or subsample, of patients with schizoaffective disorder were included.

RESULTS: Twenty-two of 43 neuropsychological and 19 of 51 neuroimaging articles fulfilled inclusion criteria. We found a general trend towards schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder being related to worse cognitive performance than bipolar disorder. Grey matter volume loss in schizoaffective disorder is also more comparable to schizophrenia than to bipolar disorder which seems consistent across further neuroimaging techniques.

CONCLUSIONS: Neurocognitive and neuroimaging abnormalities in schizoaffective disorder resemble more schizophrenia than bipolar disorder. This is suggestive for schizoaffective disorder being a subtype of schizophrenia or being part of the continuum spectrum model of psychosis, with schizoaffective disorder being more skewed towards schizophrenia than bipolar disorder.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free