Systematic review highlights cognitive function deficits in children with rasmussen's encephalitis, suggesting disease progression worsens outcomes.
Objective Rasmussen’s encephalitis (RE) is a rare, progressive neurological disorder characterized by focal neurological deficits, focal awareness or tonic-clonic seizures, motor issues, and cognitive deterioration, primarily affecting children (Caprara et al., 2024; Varadkar et al., 2015). This review explores the neuropsychological effects of RE in children, focusing on cognitive and executive function deficits and how hemispheric involvement and disease progression alter cognitive outcomes over time (Zhang et al., 2022). Method A systematic search was conducted across PubMed and PsycINFO for studies published from 2000 to 2025 that included neuropsychological assessments of children diagnosed with RE. Inclusion criteria required studies of RE diagnosis and the use of standardized cognitive measures. Studies were selected based on evaluation of cognitive and executive function, motor abilities, and/or language abilities; 27 studies met criteria. Results Research indicates that children with RE frequently experience severe decline in memory and executive function (Martino et al., 2024). Hemisphere involvement significantly impacts cognitive performance, with left hemisphere damage often resulting in more pronounced language and memory deficits (Ono et al., 2022). Longitudinal studies show a gradual decline in IQ and executive function, with some children retaining nonverbal abilities despite profound language impairment (Chiang et al., 2002; Martino et al., 2024). Conclusion RE leads to progressive cognitive deficits, particularly in executive function and language, which worsen with disease progression. Early diagnosis and consistent neuropsychological monitoring are critical for managing cognitive decline and improving quality of life (Varadkar et al., 2016). Future research should examine targeted cognitive rehabilitation to mitigate the impact of RE.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bettridge et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: