ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023
Differences in metacognition between multiple sclerosis phenotypes: cognitive impairment and fatigue are key factors.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of a 24-hour call shift on cognitive function and simulated resuscitation performance in anaesthesia providers: a pilot study.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Observational
- Linking movement-related beta oscillations to cortical excitability, structural damage, and fatigue in multiple sclerosis.Brain communications · 2026Article
- Metacognition and cognitive dysfunction in post-COVID condition.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Understanding the mechanisms of fatigue in multiple sclerosis: linking interoception, metacognition and white matter dysconnectivity.Brain communications · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cognitive impairment is present in 40-65% of patients with multiple sclerosis (pwMS). Objectively measured cognitive performance often does not match patients' subjective perception of their own performance. Objective: We aimed to compare cognitive performance and subjective perception of cognitive deficits between pwMS and healthy controls (HCs), as well as the accuracy of subjective perception. Methods: In total, 54 HC and 112 pwMS (relapsing-remitting, RRMS, and progressive PMS) underwent neuropsychological evaluation and completed perceived deficit, fatigue, and anxiety-depression scales. Participants were classified according to their consistency between subjective self-evaluation of cognitive abilities and objective cognitive performance to assess accuracy. Regression models were used to compare cognitive performance between groups and explore factors explaining inaccuracy in the estimation of cognitive performance. Results: PMS showed greater and more widespread cognitive differences with HC than RRMS. No differences were found between pwMS and HC in the perception of deficit. PMS had higher ratios of overestimators. In explaining inaccuracy, fatigue and cognitive preservation were found to be risk factors for underestimation, whereas physical disability and cognitive impairment were risk factors for overestimation. Conclusion: PwMS have metacognitive knowledge impairments. This study provides new information about metacognition, data on the prevalence of impairments over a relatively large sample of PwMS, and new insights into factors explaining it. Anosognosia, related to cognitive impairment, may be present in pwMS. Fatigue is a key factor in underestimating cognition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.