Home › Research › Prevention trials
Cognitive Intra-individual Variability in HIV: an Integrative Review
Vance DE, Del Bene VA, Frank JS, Billings R, Triebel K, Buchholz A, Rubin LH, Woods SP et al.. Neuropsychology review, 2021-11-26
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Nearly 30-50% of people living with HIV experience HIV-Associated Neurocognitive Disorder (HAND). HAND indicates performance at least one standard deviation below the normative mean on any two cognitive domains. This method for diagnosing or classifying cognitive impairment has utility, however, cognitive intraindividual variability provides a different way to understand cognitive impairment. Cognitive intraindividual variability refers to the scatter in cognitive performance within repeated measures of the same cognitive test (i.e., inconsistency) or across different cognitive tests (i.e., dispersion). Cognitive intraindividual variability is associated with cognitive impairment and cognitive decline in various clinical populations. This integrative review of 13 articles examined two types of cognitive intraindividual variability in people living with HIV, inconsistency and dispersion. Cognitive intraindividual variability appears to be a promising approach to detect subtle cognitive impairments that are not captured by traditional mean-based neuropsychological testing. Greater intraindividual variability in people living with HIV has been associated with: 1) poorer cognitive performance and cognitive decline, 2) cortical atrophy, both gray and white matter volume, 3) poorer everyday functioning (i.e., driving simulation performance), specifically medication adherence, and 4) even mortality. This inspires future directions for research. First, greater cognitive intraindividual variability may reflect a greater task demand on executive control to harness and regulate cognitive control over time. By improving executive functioning through cognitive training, it may reduce cognitive intraindividual variability which could slow down cognitive decline. Second, cognitive intraindividual variability may be reconsidered in prior cognitive intervention studies in which only mean-based cognitive outcomes were used. It is possible that such cognitive interventions may actually improve cognitive intraindividual variability, which could have clinical relevance.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Vance, D. E., Del Bene, V. A., Frank, J. S., Billings, R., Triebel, K., Buchholz, A., et al. (2022). Cognitive Intra-individual Variability in HIV: an Integrative Review. Neuropsychology review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-021-09528-x
Vancouver
Vance DE, Del Bene VA, Frank JS, Billings R, Triebel K, Buchholz A, et al. Cognitive Intra-individual Variability in HIV: an Integrative Review. Neuropsychology review. 2022. doi:10.1007/s11065-021-09528-x. PMID: 34826006.
BibTeX
@article{vance2022-34826006,
author = {Vance, D. E. and Del Bene, V. A. and Frank, J. S. and Billings, R. and Triebel, K. and Buchholz, A. and Rubin, L. H. and Woods, S. P. and others},
title = {{Cognitive Intra-individual Variability in HIV: an Integrative Review}},
journal = {Neuropsychology review},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1007/s11065-021-09528-x},
pmid = {34826006},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-021-09528-x}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Cognitive intraindividual variability is associated with cognitive impairment and cognitive decline in various clinical populations.
- Greater intraindividual variability in people living with HIV has been associated with: 1) poorer cognitive performance and cognitive decline, 2) cortical atrophy, both gray and white matter volume, 3) poorer everyday functioning (i.e., driving simulation performance), specifically medication adherence, and 4) even mortality.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 40/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neuropsychology review) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 34826006) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 23 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100. |
| Total | 40 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Prevention trials
Also in Prevention trials
86 studies in the library are filed under Prevention trials with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Prevention trials hub.