Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29079970›Full record

SynthesisNeuropsychology review2018

Prosaccade and Antisaccade Paradigms in Persons with Alzheimer's Disease: A Meta-Analytic Review.

Naomi Kahana Levy, Michal Lavidor, Eli Vakil

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neuropsychology review, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Naomi Kahana LevyDepartment of Psychology and the Gonda Brain Research Center, Bar Ilan University, 5290002, Ramat Gan, Israel. Naomile11@gmail.com.
Michal LavidorDepartment of Psychology and the Gonda Brain Research Center, Bar Ilan University, 5290002, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Eli VakilDepartment of Psychology and the Gonda Brain Research Center, Bar Ilan University, 5290002, Ramat Gan, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Persons with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) are at high Alzheimer's Disease (AD) risk but the development of sensitive measures to assess subtle cognitive decline in this population poses a major challenge for clinicians and researchers. Eye movement monitoring is a non-invasive, sensitive way to assess subtle cognitive processes in clinical populations. We conducted a critical review and a meta-analysis of the literature on pro and antisaccade paradigm in AD/MCI. The meta-analysis included 20 studies, all of which used the prosaccade paradigm and 13 of which studied the antisaccade paradigm as well. Our meta-analysis showed that AD but not MCI patients showed longer prosaccade latencies when compared to controls. While antisaccade latencies did not differentiate between patients from controls, antisaccade error rate were significantly increased among patients in comparison to controls in over 87% of the studies. These findings highlight antisaccade error rate as a reliable tool to distinguish inhibition abilities between AD/MCI and healthy older persons.

Indexed as

Neuropsychological TestsSaccadesAlzheimer DiseaseCognitive DysfunctionEye Movement MeasurementsHumansInhibition, PsychologicalAlzheimer’s DiseaseAntisaccadeMeta-analysisMild cognitive impairmentProsaccadeReview

Identifiers

PMID29079970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.