SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

The 'cognitive footprint' of psychiatric and neurological conditions: cross-sectional study in the UK Biobank cohort.

Acta Psychiatr Scand · 2017-04-07

DOI: 10.1111/acps.12733PMID: 28387438

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

ObjectiveWe aimed to quantify the prevalence of cognitive impairment in adults with a history of mood disorder, schizophrenia, multiple sclerosis or Parkinson's disease, within a large general population cohort.MethodCross-sectional study using UK Biobank data (n = 502 642). Psychiatric and neurological exposure status was ascertained via self-reported diagnoses, hospital records and questionnaires. Impairment on reasoning, reaction time and memory tests was defined with reference to a single unexposed comparison group. Results were standardised for age and gender. Sensitivity analyses examined the influence of comorbidity, education, information sources and missing data.ResultsRelative to the unexposed group, cognitive impairment was least common in major depression (standardised prevalence ratios across tests = 1.00 [95% CI 0.98, 1.02] to 1.49 [95% CI 1.24, 1.79]) and most common in schizophrenia (1.89 [95% CI 1.47, 2.42] to 3.92 [95% CI 2.34, 6.57]). Prevalence in mania/bipolar was similar to that in multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease. Estimated population attributable prevalence of cognitive impairment was higher for major depression (256 per 100 000 [95% CI 130, 381]) than for all other disorders.ConclusionAlthough the relative prevalence of cognitive impairment was lowest in major depression, the population attributable prevalence was highest overall for this group.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.