Berardi Anna, Panuccio Francescaroberta, Pilli Luisa, Tofani Marco, Valente Donatella, Galeoto Giovanni
Department of Human Neurosciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2021 Oct;21(5):885-896. doi: 10.1080/14737167.2021.1908889. Epub 2021 Apr 8.
The present study aimed to perform a systematic review of instruments for evaluating the executive functions (EFs) in a pediatric population to assess their measurement properties, focusing on the professional who administers it.
A systematic search of the literature was performed on Cinahl, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science and Medline to identify studies in which an instrument for evaluating the EFs was described. Included only were the papers reporting the evaluation of EFs, with any instrument, on a population aged 0 to 18 consisting of healthy individuals or people with neurodevelopmental disorder. The evaluation of the Risk of Bias has been carried out with the administration of a part of the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) Checklist.
The search ended on the 2nd of August. Only 19 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study; the papers refer to 16 different evaluation tools of the EF. Analysis of the methodological quality shows that most of the papers assessed received an 'inadequate' or 'insufficient' score. Indeed, only two articles received six or five 'sufficient' out of 8 items; instead, ten papers received one or zero 'sufficient.'
本研究旨在对评估儿科人群执行功能（EFs）的工具进行系统评价，以评估其测量属性，重点关注使用该工具的专业人员。
在CINAHL、PsycINFO、Scopus、科学网和Medline上对文献进行了系统检索，以识别描述评估EFs工具的研究。仅纳入了报告使用任何工具对0至18岁健康个体或神经发育障碍患者群体进行EFs评估的论文。使用健康测量工具选择的基于共识标准（COSMIN）清单的一部分进行了偏倚风险评估。
检索于8月2日结束。只有19篇文章符合纳入标准并被纳入研究；这些论文涉及EF的16种不同评估工具。方法学质量分析表明，大多数评估的论文得分“不足”或“不够”。实际上，只有两篇文章在8项中有6项或5项“充分”；相反，十篇文章有1项或0项“充分”。
