4.1 Article

A Quantitative and Qualitative Review of Neurocognitive Performance in Pediatric Bipolar Disorder

Journal

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/cap.2008.064

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R01 MH 69774, RR 20571]
  2. NIH [R01 MH066647]
  3. NARSAD

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Bipolar disorder (BD) is an increasingly prevalent diagnosis in youth. As a result, there has been a corresponding increase in interest about neuropsychological and cognitive profiles in children and adolescents diagnosed with BD. Meta-analysis of the existing literature comparing individuals with BD to healthy controls indicated that the largest differences are observed for measures of verbal memory (d = 0.77). Moderate differences were found in the areas of attention (d = 0.62), executive functioning (d = 0.62), working memory (d = 0.60), visual memory (d = 0.51), visual perceptual skills (d = 0.48), and verbal fluency (d = 0.45). Small differences were found for measures of reading (d = 0.40), motor speed (d = 0.33), and full-scale intelligence quotient (IQ) (d = 0.32). Often, few studies have provided relevant information for a particular neurocognitive domain. Despite this, several domains displayed heterogeneity of effect sizes across studies. Methodological factors explained the variance in effect sizes to different extents depending upon the cognitive domain. The changing influence of method artifacts is likely due to variable coverage of cognitive domains across studies and the use of different measures across studies. Findings are consistent with previous meta-analyses of the adult BD neurocognitive literature, suggesting that many of the deficits observed in adults are present earlier in the course of the illness. Study reporting guidelines are offered that may help clarify the impact of illness definitions, mood state, medication status, and other methodological variables on neurocognition in pediatric BD.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available