| Title |
Lower cognitive function in patients with age-related macular degeneration: a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Interventions in Aging, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cia.s102213 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Li-Xiao Zhou, Cheng-Lin Sun, Li-Juan Wei, Zhi-Min Gu, Liang Lv, Yalong Dang |
| Abstract |
To investigate the cognitive impairment in patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Relevant articles were identified through a search of the following electronic databases through October 2015, without language restriction: 1) PubMed; 2) the Cochrane Library; 3) EMBASE; 4) ScienceDirect. Meta-analysis was conducted using STATA 12.0 software. Standardized mean differences with corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated. All of the included studies met the following four criteria: 1) the study design was a case-control or randomized controlled trial (RCT) study; 2) the study investigated cognitive function in the patient with AMD; 3) the diagnoses of AMD must be provided; 4) there were sufficient scores data to extract for evaluating cognitive function between cases and controls. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria were used to assess the methodological quality of the studies. Of the initial 278 literatures, only six case-control and one RCT studies met all of the inclusion criteria. A total of 794 AMD patients and 1,227 controls were included in this study. Five studies were performed with mini-mental state examination (MMSE), two studies with animal fluency, two studies with trail making test (TMT)-A and -B, one study with Mini-Cog. Results of the meta-analysis revealed lower cognitive function test scores in patients with AMD, especially with MMSE and Mini-Cog test (P≤0.001 for all). The results also showed that differences in the TMT-A (except AMD [total] vs controls) and TMT-B test had no statistical significance (P>0.01). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score was ≥5 for all of the included studies. Based on the sensitivity analysis, no single study influenced the overall pooled estimates. This meta-analysis suggests lower cognitive function test scores in patients with AMD, especially with MMSE and Mini-Cog test. The other cognitive impairment screening tests, such as animal fluency test and TMT, need more studies to assess. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 40% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 36 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 24% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 19% |
| Unknown | 10 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 30% |
| Psychology | 3 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 14 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 February 2016.
All research outputs
#8,535,684
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#818
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,434
of 406,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#17
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 406,429 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.