Table 2 Results of neuropsychological assessment reported in the included studies
From: Cognitive functioning in patients with classical galactosemia: a systematic review
| Author (year) | Tests | Memory | Information Processing Speed | Attention/Executive functioning | Language | Visuospatial functioning & construction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antshel et al. (2004) [19] |
ROCF BNT WCST BVMI |
ROCF IR organization: not impaired (z = − 0.57 (SD = 0.19); p = .307) ROCF IR structural elements accuracy: not impaired (z = − 0.25 (SD = 0.11); p = .338) ROCF IR incidental elements accuracy: impaired (z = − 1.47 (SD = 0.53); p < .001) ROCF DR organization: not impaired (z = − 0.58 (SD = 0.17); p = .387) ROCF DR structural elements accuracy: not impaired (z = − 0.63 (SD = 0.08); p = .316) ROCF DR incidental elements accuracy: impaired (z = − 1.43 (SD = 0.32); p < .001) | NI |
WCST completed categories: not impaired (z = − 1.32 (SD = 0.43); p < .001) WCST perseverative errors (%): impaired (z = − 1.98 (SD = 0.38); p < .001) |
BNT total correct: not impaired (z = − 0.89 (SD = 0.18); p < .001) BNT total correct with phonemic cue: not impaired (z = 0.43 (SD = 0.16); p = .227) |
ROCF Copy organization: not impaired (z = − 0.18 (SD = 0.10); p = .421) ROCF Copy structural elements accuracy: not impaired (z = − 0.26 (SD = 0.04); p = .309) ROCF Copy incidental elements accuracy: not impaired (z = − 1.35 (SD = 0.45); p < .001) BVMI: not impaired (z = − 0.77 (SD = 0.27); p = .089) |
| Doyle et al. (2010) [21] |
Hayling Test BSAT WMS III VOSP - Incomplete letters - Position discrimination |
WMS III Auditory IR Index: not impaired (z = − 0.53 (SD = 1.07), 32.1% < P9) WMS III Auditory DR Index: not impaired (z = − 0.37 (SD = 1.13), 21.4% < P9) WMS III Auditory Recognition Index: not impaired (z = − 0.25 (SD = 0.91), 7.1% < P9) WMS III Visual IR Index: not impaired (z = − 1.27 (SD = 0.73), 39.4% < P9) WMS III Visual DR Index: not impaired (z = − 1.18 (SD = 0.88), 39.3% < P9) |
Hayling Test (N = 24): impaired (z = − 1.83 (SD = 0.4), 29.1% < P9) |
WMS III Digit Span (N = 27): not impaired (z = − 1.03 (SD = 0.73), 29.6% < P9) WMS III Spatial Span (N = 25): not impaired (z = − 0.93 (SD = 1.07), 28.0% < P9) WMS III Letter-number sequencing (N = 27): not impaired (z = − 1.07 (SD = 0.87), 29.7% < P9) BSAT (N = 24): impaired (z = − 1.47 (SD = 0.37), 16.7% < P9) Hayling Test (N = 24): impaired (z = − 1.83 (SD = 0.4), 29.1% < P9) | NI |
VOSP Incomplete letters (N = 23): not impaired (z = 0 (SD = 1.0), 4.3% < P9) VOSP Position discrimination (N = 23): impaired (z = − 2.13 (SD = 3.38), 43.4% < P9) |
|
Hoffmann et al. (2011) [22] | HWWRT | NI | NI | NI | Impaired: 84.4% of the patients had errors (> cut-off of 1) | NI |
|
Iakovou et al. (2018) [26] | PPVT-III | NI | NI | NI | PPVT-III: not impaired (z = 1.20) | NI |
| Kaufman et al. (1995) [23] |
WJ-R COG PPVT-R BVMI |
WJ-R Memory for names (N = 40): Children: not impaired (z = − 0.79 (SD = 1.09)), Adults: not impaired (z = − 1.33 (SD = 0.91)) |
WJ-R Visual Matching (N = 40): Children: impaired (z = − 1.86 (SD = 1.84)), Adults: not impaired (z = − 1.33 (SD = 1.27)) |
WJ-R Analysis-synthesis (N = 40): Children: not impaired (z = − 1.18 (SD = 0.97)), Adults: not impaired (z = − 0.99 (SD = 1.01)) WJ-R Memory for sentences (N = 40): Children: not impaired (z = − 1.19 (SD = 1.29)), Adults: not impaired (z = − 1.21 (SD = 0.93)) |
WJ-R Incomplete words (N = 40): Children: not impaired (z = − 1.03 (SD = 0.96)), Adults: not impaired (z = − 0.69 (SD = 1.03)) WJ-R Picture vocabulary (N = 40): Children: not impaired (z = − 1.24 (SD = 1.06)), Adults: impaired (z = − 1.81 (SD = 1.24)) PPVT-R (N = 36): Children: not impaired (z = − 0.93 (SD = 0.89)), Adults: impaired (z = − 1.57 (SD = 1.09)) |
WJ-R Visual closure (N = 40): Children: not impaired (z = − 0.27 (SD = 1.0)), Adults: not impaired (z = − 0.84 (SD = 0.85)) BVMI (N = 36): Children: not impaired (z = − 1.25 (SD = 0.87)) |
|
Lewis et al. (2012) [25] |
PPVT-4 EVT-2 | NI | NI | NI |
PPVT-4: Child 2,3,4 impaired (z = − 1.67; z = − 2.2; z = − 2.0), Child 1 not impaired (z = 0.73) EVT-2: Child 3,4 impaired (z = − 1.93; z = − 2.0), Child 1,2 not impaired (z = 0.47; z = − 1.33) | NI |
|
Lewis et al. (2013) [20] |
PLS-4 PPVT-4 EVT-2 | NI | NI | NI |
PLS-4 Auditory comprehension: not impaired (z = − 1.13; p ≥ .05) PLS-4 Expressive communication: impaired (z = − 1.67; p ≥ .05) PPVT-4: not impaired (z = − 0.47; p ≥ .05) EVT-2: not impaired (z = − 1.07; p ≥ .05) | NI |
|
Lewis et al. (2013) [27] | PLS-4 | NI | NI | NI |
PLS-4 Receptive communication: impaired (z = − 2.27) PLS-4 Expressive communication: impaired (z = − 1.67) | NI |
| Ng et al. (2003) [28] | PPVT-R | NI | NI | NR | PPVT-R: not impaired (z = 1.13) | NR |
|
Van Erven et al. (2017) [24] | ROCF | ROCF IR: impaired (z = − 2.0) | NI | NI | NI | NI |
| Waisbren et al. (2012) [15] | PPVT-4 | NI | NI | NI |
PPVT-4: not impaired (z = − 0.87 (SD = 0.98)) | NI |