Evidence Hub

A meta-analysis of executive functions among survivors of subarachnoid haemorrhage

M. Burke, F. C. Wilson, David B. Curran, Martin Dempster

Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 2020

248 participants · 10 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT Subarachnoid Haemorrhage (SAH) is a type of stroke which is suggested to result in Executive Functioning (EF) deficits. Within the SAH research, EF is typically assessed as a unitary cognitive construct. Therefore, the nature and extent to which the different components of EF are impacted post SAH remain unclear. In this meta-analysis, 10 studies met selection criteria including 248 SAH participants, treated by endovascular coiling. Participants were assessed by EF measures and compared with 230 controls. Searches were conducted in November 2018 including Medline, PsychINFO, Web of Science, Scopus and CINAHL databases. EF measures were assigned to categories including Cognitive Flexibility, Working Memory, Inhibitory Control and Planning/Problem Solving [Diamond, 2013. Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 135–168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750]. A statistically significant effect was found for overall EF. Cognitive Flexibility (G = −0.76) and Inhibitory Control (G = −0.51) generated moderate effect sizes, while Working Memory and Planning/Problem Solving found a small effect size (G = −0.45 and G = −0.49, respectively). The I 2 statistic suggested small to moderate heterogeneity between studies, hypothesized to relate to different cognitive tools. Underlying components of EF appear to be differentially impacted post SAH, with Cognitive flexibility demonstrating the largest degree of deficit. Recommendations for a…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, 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. Reported size: 248 participants or records.

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