Pharmacological management of neurocognitive impairment in schizophrenia: A narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment are among the core features of schizophrenia, experienced by up to 75% of patients. Available treatment options for schizophrenia including dopamine antagonists and traditional antipsychotic medications have not been shown to confer significant benefits on cognitive deficits. Contrary to the focus on management of positive symptoms in schizophrenia, cognitive abilities are main predictor of independent living skills, functional abilities, employment, engagement in relapse prevention, and patients' subjective sense of well-being and quality of life. This review aims to provide a summary of recent literature on pharmacological options for the treatment of cognitive deficits in schizophrenia. METHODS: We conducted a literature search of studies from 2011 to 2021 across four electronic databases including PubMed, PsycInfo, MEDLINE, and Embase. Human studies using a pharmacological treatment for cognitive impairment in schizophrenia were included. RESULTS: Fifty-eight eligible publications, representing 11 pharmacological classes, were included in this review. Major limitations involved small sample size, methodological limitations as well as heterogeneity of participants and outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: Overall evidence remains inconclusive for any pharmacological classes studied for the treatment of cognitive deficits in schizophrenia. Methodological limitations in a majority of the studies rendered their findings preliminary. We further discuss possible explanations for these findings that could guide future research.

Epidemiological characteristics and prevalence rates of research reproducibility across disciplines: A scoping review of articles published in 2018-2019.

Background: Reproducibility is a central tenant of research. We aimed to synthesize the literature on reproducibility and describe its epidemiological characteristics, including how reproducibility is defined and assessed. We also aimed to determine and compare estimates for reproducibility across different fields. Methods: We conducted a scoping review to identify English language replication studies published between 2018 and 2019 in economics, education, psychology, health sciences, and biomedicine. We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature - CINAHL, Education Source via EBSCOHost, ERIC, EconPapers, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS), and EconLit. Documents retrieved were screened in duplicate against our inclusion criteria. We extracted year of publication, number of authors, country of affiliation of the corresponding author, and whether the study was funded. For the individual replication studies, we recorded whether a registered protocol for the replication study was used, whether there was contact between the reproducing team and the original authors, what study design was used, and what the primary outcome was. Finally, we recorded how reproducibilty was defined by the authors, and whether the assessed study(ies) successfully reproduced based on this definition. Extraction was done by a single reviewer and quality controlled by a second reviewer. Results: Our search identified 11,224 unique documents, of which 47 were included in this review. Most studies were related to either psychology (48.6%) or health sciences (23.7%). Among these 47 documents, 36 described a single reproducibility study while the remaining 11 reported at least two reproducibility studies in the same paper. Less than the half of the studies referred to a registered protocol. There was variability in the definitions of reproduciblity success. In total, across the 47 documents 177 studies were reported. Based on the definition used by the author of each study, 95 of 177 (53.7%) studies reproduced. Conclusions: This study gives an overview of research across five disciplines that explicitly set out to reproduce previous research. Such reproducibility studies are extremely scarce, the definition of a successfully reproduced study is ambiguous, and the reproducibility rate is overall modest. Funding: No external funding was received for this work.