SynthesisNeuropsychology review2026
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Use of the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery in Clinical Populations.
Synthesis in Neuropsychology review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Shared Sociodemographic Risk Factors for Neurocognitive Dysfunction in Children With Cancer and Blood Disorders.Pediatric blood & cancer · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) is an assessment tool that has been widely utilized in research with clinical populations across the lifespan. Despite its widespread use, a systematic review and meta-analysis of cognitive function utilizing this battery in clinical samples has not been reported. To address this gap, 84 studies were identified after systematically searching PsycINFO, PubMed, and ProQuest (71 peer-reviewed articles, 11 dissertations, 2 master's theses) comprising 6331 clinical participants. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Results identified significant deficits in the Fluid Cognition Composite and the associated subtests (attention, working memory, processing speed, executive function) in clinical samples when compared to both the NIHTB-CB normative data and recruited comparison samples. Unexpectedly, there was some evidence that clinical participants scored higher on Crystallized Cognition subtests than the normative data but scored significantly lower than recruited controls. There was mixed evidence for performance differences on a Total Cognition Composite measure of cognitive function. There was some evidence of publication bias, and results were moderated by study quality and participant demographics. The implications of the findings for clinical research settings are discussed and suggested future directions are provided.
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.