Evaluating working memory functioning in individuals with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis, 2

forestglip

forestglip

Moderator
Staff member
Evaluating working memory functioning in individuals with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Penson, Maddison; Kelly, Kate

[Line breaks added]

Abstract
Individuals with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) frequently report pronounced cognitive difficulties, yet the empirical literature has not fully characterised how discrete components of working memory are affected. Given that working memory serves as a foundational system supporting complex cognitive processes, differentiating performance across verbal and visual modalities provides critical insight into which higher-order functions may be most vulnerable.

This systematic review/meta-analysis aimed to synthesise current research to investigate how ME/CFS impacts working memory systems. Using PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search of 6 databases was undertaken (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, PubMed, EMBASE and PsycINFO). Initially, 10 574 papers were imported and following screening 34 studies of good to strong quality met the inclusion criteria. A series of random effects models were utilised to analyse working memory.

Results indicated a significant difference and large effect size between ME/CFS individuals and controls on verbal working memory tasks; however, no significant difference in visual working memory performance was found between the groups. Following the breakdown of these subsystems into span/attentional control tasks and object/spatial tasks, these results remained consistent.

These findings contribute to the body of ME/CFS research by articulating where specific working memory deficits lie. Specifically, they show that individuals with ME/CFS have impaired verbal memory performance. This knowledge can guide future research targeting higher-order verbal cognition and underscores the importance of recognising cognitive manifestations within ME/CFS clinical care.

Web | DOI | Psychology, Health & Medicine | Paywall
 
I’d say that they aren’t far off with looking at exec function

And then I see ‘cognitive manifestations’ at the end - a vile term I hate

And note that rather than as a cognitive psychologist should be using it and realising we are people with a condition where we get PEM, fatiguability and exhaustion and this could be a useful within-individual measure to calibrate and actually show TGESE ie the exhaustion and PEM by measuring how it can be seen on its effects in this

They are now trying to suggest we just have cognitive issues that what - can be trained out if by unnecessarily wasting our energy

And think they’ve missed the point in both subjects - good scientific psychology that if so focuses on methods and controlling for factors that the whole of psych knows are human factors or bias etc

And ‘getting’ what the illness is.

Which is a shame given I suspect there is a huge body of research in ‘human factors’ research of the type used eg for air traffic control and had to be done in order to recommend length of shift and breaks etc

That could easily it feels be built on given it is explicitly looking at the impact of exhaustion and forwent external factors on ‘performance’ not to pathologies but just know human limits . I bet it even covers issues like noise and light and multi tasking on top. I wonder if it touches on eg pain if someone has something else distracting them like being in an uncomfy chair

On this occasion it would be comparing an individual ‘to themself’ but could eg then use a good test to show how when recovering from a different exertion eg an appointment or for more well people an exertion to their limit starts to show over the days after that (and measure when PEM hits and if it affects this and by how much and in what time cycle )
 
The paper said:
10 574 papers were imported and following screening 34 studies of good to strong quality met the inclusion criteria
Click to expand...
That really should read "minimal quality". If it's only good enough to be included in a comparison, that doesn't mean "good to strong", it just means it meets the minimum level of quality they consider adequate. The mass of sloppy research in clinical psychology is a scandal that no one dares voice with proper urgency. All the crap about a crisis of replicability has gone completely ignored in real life terms, it just keeps plowing unimpeded. In evidence-based medicine it's routine for 90%+ of trials to be excluded, with the rest being of barely passable quality and high bias, somehow that gets praised as high quality. I've never seen a bar set so low in any profession.

And then you add the fact that so many people report significant problems with memories, and that none of the standard tools used for this have confirmed it, without understanding what it means about the tools they use. It's the lack of self-reflection that I find shocking in health care. There just is never any when it comes to issues like this, so the crisis only worsens.
 
10 574 papers were imported and following screening 34 studies of good to strong quality met the inclusion criteria
Click to expand...
rvallee said:
That really should read "minimal quality". If it's only good enough to be included in a comparison, that doesn't mean "good to strong", it just means it meets the minimum level of quality they consider adequate.
Click to expand...
Someone ought to do that systemic review "We looked at 10574papers and determined none of them met sufficient standard to be included in a systemic review due to widespread poor standards and low quality". That is the reality of the psychology industry as it stands and its ability to replicate its findings. None of it is of sufficient standing to use and someone from their industry needs to say it, reject the entire lot because its just worthless garbage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom