SynthesisCerebellum (London, England)2026
Prevalence of Cerebellar Cognitive Affective Syndrome in Patients with Cerebellar Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Cerebellum (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cerebellar cognitive affective syndrome (CCAS) is increasingly recognized across cerebellar disorders, but its prevalence remains uncertain because study populations and assessment methods vary. We systematically evaluated CCAS prevalence across cerebellar disorders and synthesized estimates according to assessment method. MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, and two trial registries were searched from inception to November 5, 2025, without language restrictions. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. Studies using conventional neuropsychological assessments were included in the review but excluded from the meta-analysis because of their small number and methodological heterogeneity and were summarized descriptively. CCAS-Scale studies were pooled using random-effects models. Fifteen studies in 17 publications (712 participants) were included; five were at high risk of bias. Two conventional neuropsychological studies reported CCAS prevalence of 22.2% and 55.6%. Among 13 CCAS-Scale studies, pooled definite CCAS prevalence was 67% (95% CI, 53%-79%; I² = 91.0%; τ² = 0.21). In 11 studies reporting all four categories, proportions were 7% for no CCAS, 18% for possible, 15% for probable, and 62% for definite CCAS. Sensitivity analyses yielded estimates of 65%-69%, with persistent heterogeneity. Egger's test suggested small-study effects (p = 0.009). Definite CCAS was frequently identified using the CCAS-Scale, but considerable heterogeneity limits application of the pooled estimate to individual patients or clinical populations. The CCAS-Scale should be interpreted as a screening tool, with comprehensive neuropsychological assessment considered when clinically indicated. Standardized criteria and within-participant validation are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42806209What 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.