Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Saccadic Eye Movement in Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Opwonya J, Doan DNT, Kim SG, Kim JI, Ku B, Kim S, Park S, Kim JU.. Neuropsychology review, 2021-05-06
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the leading cause of dementia, and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is considered the transitional state to AD dementia (ADD) and other types of dementia, whose symptoms are accompanied by altered eye movement. In this work, we reviewed the existing literature and conducted a meta-analysis to extract relevant eye movement parameters that are significantly altered owing to ADD and MCI. We conducted a systematic review of 35 eligible original publications in saccade paradigms and a meta-analysis of 27 articles with specified task conditions, which used mainly gap and overlap conditions in both prosaccade and antisaccade paradigms. The meta-analysis revealed that prosaccade and antisaccade latencies and frequency of antisaccade errors showed significant alterations for both MCI and ADD. First, both prosaccade and antisaccade paradigms differentiated patients with ADD and MCI from controls, however, antisaccade paradigms was more effective than prosaccade paradigms in distinguishing patients from controls. Second, during prosaccade in the gap and overlap conditions, patients with ADD had significantly longer latencies than patients with MCI, and the trend was similar during antisaccade in the gap condition as patients with ADD had significantly more errors than patients with MCI. The anti-effect magnitude was similar between controls and patients, and the magnitude of the latency of the gap effect varied among healthy controls and MCI and ADD subjects, but the effect size of the latency remained large in both patients. These findings suggest that, using gap effect, anti-effect, and specific choices of saccade paradigms and conditions, distinctions could be made between MCI and ADD patients as well as between patients and controls.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Opwonya, J., Doan, D. N. T., Kim, S. G., Kim, J. I., Ku, B., Kim, S., et al. (2022). Saccadic Eye Movement in Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Neuropsychology review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-021-09495-3
Vancouver
Opwonya J, Doan DNT, Kim SG, Kim JI, Ku B, Kim S, et al. Saccadic Eye Movement in Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Neuropsychology review. 2022. doi:10.1007/s11065-021-09495-3. PMID: 33959887.
BibTeX
@article{opwonya2022-33959887,
author = {Opwonya, J. and Doan, D. N. T. and Kim, S. G. and Kim, J. I. and Ku, B. and Kim, S. and Park, S. and Kim, J. U.},
title = {{Saccadic Eye Movement in Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis}},
journal = {Neuropsychology review},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1007/s11065-021-09495-3},
pmid = {33959887},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-021-09495-3}
}
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 names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- In this work, we reviewed the existing literature and conducted a meta-analysis to extract relevant eye movement parameters that are significantly altered owing to ADD and MCI.
- The meta-analysis revealed that prosaccade and antisaccade latencies and frequency of antisaccade errors showed significant alterations for both MCI and ADD.
- Second, during prosaccade in the gap and overlap conditions, patients with ADD had significantly longer latencies than patients with MCI, and the trend was similar during antisaccade in the gap condition as patients with ADD had significantly more errors than patients with MCI.
- These findings suggest that, using gap effect, anti-effect, and specific choices of saccade paradigms and conditions, distinctions could be made between MCI and ADD patients as well as between patients and controls.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Study designsystematic review
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 71/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 71 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 | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” 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) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomization is not credited here |
| 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 33959887) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 41 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 71 out of 100. |
| Total | 71 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Brain scans and imaging
Also tagged “saccadic-eye”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “saccadic-eye”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.