Comparative study reveals reduced executive function in functional dyspepsia, indicating potential cognitive implications.
Functional magnetic resonance imaging has shown that most brain regions involved in executive functions (EFs) exhibit abnormalities in functional dyspepsia (FD) patients - for example, decreased cortical thickness in these regions. However, EFs in FD patients have remained poorly understood. This study aimed to compare EFs between healthy controls (HCs) and FD patients and investigate the associations of EFs with clinical characteristics in FD patients. Forty-three FD patients meeting the Rome IV criteria and forty-three sex-, age-, and education level-matched HCs were included in the study. The Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD-17) and Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA) were used to evaluate the participants' depression and anxiety. The Stroop color word test (SCWT), Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) and digit span test (DST) were used to measure EFs. Disease duration, dyspepsia symptom severity, and Nepean Dyspepsia Life Quality Index (NDLQI) were collected from all patients. On the SCWT, FD patients had longer completion times on color-word cards (CWTs) and greater time interference scores (TIs) than HCs did. On the DST, FD patients had significantly lower forward digit span (DF) and backwards digit span (DB) scores than HCs did. On the WCST, the total errors, percentage (%) of nonperseverative errors and percentage of perseverative errors were significantly greater in FD patients than in HCs. The CWT of FD patients negatively correlated with the severity of early satiation (feeling overly full after eating a small amount of food) or postprandial fullness (excessive fullness felt in the abdomen after eating). Additionally, the percentage of nonperseverative errors was negatively correlated with the severity of early satiation. FD patients have lower EF scores than HCs. And the scores were correlated with disease duration or severity of certain specific dyspepsia symptoms.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
He et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: