↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of cognitive performance in patients with childhood craniopharyngioma

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neuro-Oncology, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
Title
A systematic review of cognitive performance in patients with childhood craniopharyngioma
Published in
Journal of Neuro-Oncology, September 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11060-015-1885-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jale Özyurt, Hermann L. Müller, Christiane M. Thiel

Abstract

Craniopharyngiomas are rare brain tumors of the sellar/suprasellar region, often adversely affecting patients' physical and psychosocial functioning. Until a few years ago, knowledge on cognitive deficits in craniopharyngioma patients was based on little valid evidence, with considerable inconsistencies across studies. Findings from recent research, with partly larger sample sizes, add to existing evidence to provide a more clear and reliable picture. The current review aims to summarize and systemize current findings on cognitive deficits in childhood craniopharyngioma, taking account of patient- and treatment-related variables where possible. Those studies were included that reported results of childhood craniopharyngioma patients tested with formalized neuropsychological tests (irrespective of their age at study, group size ≥10). A systematic assignment of test results to subcomponents of broader cognitive domains (e.g. to specific memory systems and processes) allows for a first comprehensive overview of patterns of spared and impaired cognitive functions. We show that episodic memory recall in particular is impaired, largely sparing other memory components. In accordance with recent knowledge on mammillary function, patients with hypothalamic involvement appear to be at particular risk. Deficits in higher cognitive processes, relying on the integrity of the prefrontal cortex and its subcortical pathways, may also occur, but results are still inconsistent. To gain deeper insight into the pattern of deficits and their association with patient- and treatment-related variables, further multi-site research with larger cohorts is needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 69 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Master 7 10%
Other 6 9%
Professor 4 6%
Other 17 24%
Unknown 18 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 36%
Psychology 10 14%
Neuroscience 7 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 22 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 September 2015.
All research outputs
#18,426,826
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuro-Oncology
#2,235
of 2,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,534
of 268,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuro-Oncology
#37
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,970 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 268,597 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.