Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33818735›Full record

SynthesisNeuropsychology review2021

Working Memory in Pediatric Epilepsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Belinda J Poole, Natalie L Phillips, Elizabeth Stewart, Irina M Harris, Suncica Lah

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neuropsychology review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Belinda J PooleSchool of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Natalie L PhillipsSchool of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Elizabeth StewartSchool of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Irina M HarrisSchool of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Suncica LahSchool of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia. suncica.lah@sydney.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-2282-4812
The University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Working memory is a multicomponent system that is supported by overlapping specialized networks in the brain. Baddeley's working memory model includes four components: the phonological loop, visuo-spatial sketchpad, the central executive, and episodic buffer. The aim of this review was to establish the gravity and pattern of working memory deficits in pediatric epilepsy. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement guided electronic searches. Sixty-five studies were included in the review. Meta-analyses revealed significant impairments across each working memory component: phonological loop (g = 0.739), visuo-spatial sketchpad (g = 0.521), and central executive (g = 0.560) in children with epilepsy compared to controls. The episodic buffer was not examined. The pattern of impairments, however, differed according to the site and side of seizure focus. This suggests that working memory components are differentially vulnerable to the location of seizure focus in the developing brain.

Indexed as

EpilepsyMemory, Short-TermChildHumansMemory DisordersNeuropsychological TestsAcademicsCentral ExecutiveEpilepsyPediatricPhonological LoopVisuospatial SketchpadWorking memory

Identifiers

PMID33818735
OpenAlexW3140920601

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.