Introduction
Methods
Search strategy
Selection criteria
Study selection
Data extraction
Quality assessment
Results
Eligible and included studies
Study characteristics
Voxel-based morphometry analysis
Reference | Sample | Age | Sample recruitment | Study type | Main results | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Control | SCI | Control | SCI | ||||
45 | 49 | 74.9 (7.1) | 73.9 (7.2) | Other | Prospective | Regional atrophy was found in the bilateral superior frontal sulci in SCD compared with HC. | |
Choi et al. (2015) [18] | 33 | 36 | 63.9 (7.5) | 64.6 (7.7) | Memory clinic | Retrospective | Regional atrophy was found in the left superior and medial frontal gyri, left superior and inferior parietal lobules and right precuneus and insula in SCD compared with HC. |
Dong et al. (2020) [19] | 67 | 63 | 65.3 (5.1) | 65.8(5.0) | Other | Retrospective | No significant differences were found between SCD and HC. |
Erk et al. (2011) [20] | 20 | 19 | 66.8 (5.4) | 68.4 (5.7) | Memory clinic | Retrospective | No significant differences were found between SCD and HC. |
29 | 25 | 71.3 (3.4) | 71.4 (9.2) | Memory clinic | Prospective | Regional atrophy was found in the right hippocampus and amygdala, bilateral ACC, mPFC, cuneus, precuneus and precentral gyrus in SCD compared with HC. | |
Hong et al. (2015) [23] | 28 | 28 | 70.6 (6.48) | 70.9 (6.23) | Memory clinic | Prospective | Regional atrophy was found in the left orbitofrontal gyrus, inferior frontal gyrus, right calcarine gyrus, precuneus, lingual gyrus, inferior temporal gyrus and other mid-cingulate areas in SCD compared with HC. |
Kiuchi et al. (2014) [11] | 41 | 28 | 75.2 (5.3) | 70.5 (7.3) | Memory clinic | Prospective | No significant differences were found between SCD and HC. |
Liang et al. (2020) [24] | 32 | 35 | 63.03 (5.4) | 64.94 (5.95) | Other | Prospective | Regional atrophy was found in the bilateral hippocampal tails and increased volume was found in the bilateral paracentral lobules in SCD compared with HC. |
Parker et al. (2020) [25] | 23 | 23 | 74.3 (5.0) | 72.9 (5.4) | Other | Retrospective | No significant differences were found between SCD and HC. |
Perrotin et al. (2015) [26] | 40 | 17 | 69.35 (6.37) | 69.12 (8.52) | Memory clinic | Prospective | Regional atrophy was found in the hippocampus (CA1) in SCD compared with HC. |
Perrotin et al. (2017) [12] | 35 | 63 | 65.6 (8.6) | 67.6 (7.7)* 70.8 (7.5)* | Other | Prospective | No significant differences were found between SCD and HC. |
Saykin et al. (2006) [27] | 40 | 40 | 71 (5.1) | 73.3 (6) | Other | Prospective | Regional atrophy was found in the bilateral frontal lobe (top), right hippocampus (middle) and left hippocampus in SCD compared with HC. |
Scheef et al. (2012) [28] | 56 | 31 | 66.4 (7.2) | 67.6 (6.2) | Memory clinic | Prospective | Regional atrophy was found in the right hippocampus in SCD compared with HC. |
Sun et al. (2016) [29] | 61 | 25 | 64.11 (8.59) | 65.52 (6.12) | Memory clinic | Prospective | No significant differences were found between SCD and HC. |
Xue et al. (2020) [30] | 28 | 19 | 72.66 (4.42) | 71.95 (5.09) | Other | Retrospective | No significant differences were found between SCD and HC. |
ROI analysis
Reference | Sample | Age | Sample recruitment | ROIs | Study type | Type of segmentation | Main results | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Control | SCI | Control | SCI | ||||||
Beckett et al. (2015) [31] | 189 | 106 | - | - | Other | Hippocampus | Retrospective | Automated | No significant differences were found between SCD and HC. |
Caillaud et al. (2020) [32] | 30 | 67 | 71.9 (5.7) | 72.3 (5.1) | Other | Hippocampus | Prospective | - | No significant differences were found between SCD and HC. |
Cantero et al. (2016) [33] | 48 | 47 | 68.1 (3.2) | 69.6 (4.3) | Other | Hippocampus (parasubiculum presubiculum, subiculum, CA1, CA3, CA4 subfields, DG, HATA, fimbria, ML, fissure and tail) | Prospective | Automated | Volume reductions in the left hippocampus and its CA1, CA4, DG and ML subregions were found in SCD compared with HC. |
Cherbuin et al. (2015) [34] | 218 | 165 | 62.7 (1.3) | 62.1 (1.4) | Other | Bilateral hippocampus | Retrospective | Manual | No significant differences were found between SCD and HC. |
Cong et al. (2018) [35] | 10 | 9 | 69.2 (5.7) | 71.3 (6.4) | Memory clinic | Hippocampus (CA1, CA2, CA3, DG, subiculum, EC, BA35, BA36 and CS) | Prospective | Automated | Volume reductions in the right hippocampus, right DG and right BA35 were found in SCD compared with HC. |
34 | 43 | 67.8 (7.4) | 66.1 (7.0) | Memory clinic | Hippocampus Amygdala | Prospective | Semi-automated | No significant differences were found between SCD and HC. | |
Flier et al. (2004) [38] | 28 | 20 | 75 (7) | 72 (7) | Memory clinic | Hippocampus Parahippocampus | Prospective | Manual | Volume reduction in the left hippocampus was found in SCD compared with HC. |
29 | 25 | 71.3 (3.4) | 71.4 (9.2) | Memory clinic | Hippocampus Amygdala Thalamus Putamen Globus pallidus Nucleus accumbens Caudate nucleus | Retrospective | Automated | Volume reduction in the bilateral hippocampus was found in SCD compared with HC. | |
Hong et al. (2015) [23] | 28 | 28 | 70.6 (6.48) | 70.9 (6.23) | Memory clinic | Hippocampus Cingulate Corpus callosum | Prospective | Manual | No significant differences were found between SCD and HC. |
Ivanoiu et al. (2015) [39] | 31 | 21 | - | - | Memory clinic | Hippocampus | Prospective | Automated | No significant differences were found between SCD and HC. |
Jessen et al. (2006) [40] | 14 | 12 | 66.5 (6.4) | 66.1 (7.3) | Memory clinic | Hippocampus EC | Prospective | Manual | Volume reduction in the bilateral EC was found in SCD compared with HC. |
Kim et al. (2016) | 28 | 90 | 70.7 (5.5) | 65.8 (8.5) | Memory clinic | Hippocampus Amygdala | Prospective | Automated | Volume reductions in the hippocampus and amygdala were found in SCD compared with HC. |
Lindberg et al. (2017) [41] | 302 | 183 | 73.7 (5.0) | 70.5 (5.7) | Memory clinic | Subiculum | Prospective | Automated | No significant differences were found between SCD and HC. |
López-Sanz et al. (2017) [42] | 39 | 41 | 70.4 (3.7) | 71.6 (4.5) | Other | Hippocampus | Prospective | Automated | No significant differences were found between SCD and HC. |
López-Sanz et al. (2016) [43] | 63 | 55 | 70.7 (4.5) | 71 (5) | Memory clinic | Hippocampus | Prospective | Automated | No significant differences were found between SCD and HC. |
Marcotte et al. (2019) [44] | 29 | 68 | 70 (6.3) | 71 (6.4) | Other | Hippocampus EC | Prospective | Automated | No significant differences were found between SCD and HC. |
Perrotin et al. (2015) [26] | 40 | 17 | 69.35 (6.37) | 69.12 (8.52) | Memory clinic | Hippocampus (whole, CA1, subiculum) | Prospective | Semi-automated | Volume reductions in the hippocampus (especially CA1 and subiculum) were found in SCD compared with HC. |
Platero et al. (2018) | 70 | 87 | 70.3 (4.5) | 71.7 (5.1) | Memory clinic | Hippocampus | Prospective | Automated | No significant differences were found between SCD and HC. |
Risacher et al. (2020) [45] | 31 | 20 | 68.8 (4.8) | 72.7 (6.4) | Other | Hippocampus | Prospective | Automated | No significant differences were found between SCD and HC. |
Rogne et al. (2016) [46] | 58 | 25 | 70.6 (6.7) | 70 (9.1) | Other | Hippocampus Amygdala | Prospective | Automated | Volume reduction in the hippocampus and increased volume of the lateral ventricles were found in SCD compared with HC. |
Ryu et al. (2017) [47] | 27 | 18 | 70.59 (6.05) | 69.89 (6.26) | Memory clinic | Hippocampus EC | Prospective | Manual | Volume reduction in the EC was found in SCD compared with HC. |
Saykin et al. (2006) [27] | 40 | 40 | 71 (5.1) | 73.3 (6) | Other | Hippocampus | Prospective | Manual | No significant differences were found between SCD and HC. |
Scheef et al. (2019) [48] | 49 | 24 | 66 (7.2) | 67 (6.1) | Memory clinic | Cholinergic forebrain (Ch12 Ch3 Ch4 Ch4p NSP chBFNto) | Prospective | Automated | Volume reductions in the chBFN (especially in the Ch1/2 and Ch4p nuclei) were found in SCD compared with HC. |
Scheef et al. (2012) [28] | 56 | 31 | 66.4 (7.2) | 67.6 (6.2) | Memory clinic | Hippocampus Posterior cingulate Precuneus Parahippocampus | Prospective | Automated | Volume reduction in the right hippocampus was found in SCD compared with HC. |
Schultz et al. (2015) [49] | 184 | 77 | 54.33 (6.10) | 54.41 (6.44) | Other | Hippocampus Amygdala | Prospective | Automated | Volume reduction in the amygdala was found in SCD compared with HC. |
Selnes et al. (2012) [13] | 21 | 16 | 62 (49–77) | 59.2 (45–71) | Memory clinic | Hippocampus | Prospective | Automated | No significant differences were found between SCD and HC. |
Shu et al. (2018) [50] | 51 | 36 | 62.2 (9.1) | 62.2 (9.1) | Memory clinic | Hippocampus | Prospective | Automated | No significant differences were found between SCD and HC. |
Striepens et al. (2010) [51] | 48 | 21 | 65.8 (7.2) | 66.3 (6.1) | Memory clinic | Hippocampus EC Amygdala | Prospective | Automated | Volume reductions in the bilateral hippocampus, bilateral EC and in the right amygdala were found in SCD compared with HC. |
Tepest et al. (2008) [52] | 13 | 14 | 67.5 (5.5) | 66.4 (7.3) | Memory clinic | Hippocampus (whole, CA1, CA2, CA3, CA4, DC, subiculum) | Prospective | Manual | No significant differences were found between SCD and HC. |
van Rooden et al. (2018) [53] | 42 | 25 | 68(9.2) | 68 (9.1) | Other | Hippocampus | Prospective | Automated Manual | No significant differences were found between SCD and HC. |
Wang et al. (2006) | 50 | 28 | 71.9 (5.3) | 73 (6.4) | Memory clinic | Corpus callosum | Prospective | Semi-automated | Volume reduction in the C5 subregion of the corpus callosum was found in SCD compared to HC. |
Yue et al. (2018) [54] | 67 | 111 | 67.7 (6.6) | 69.8 (7.6) | Other | Hippocampus Amygdala Temporal horn | Retrospective | Automated | Volume reductions in the right hippocampus and right amygdala were found in SCD compared with HC. |
Zajac et al. (2020) [55] | 24 (SCD−) | 29 (SCD+) | 72.1 (10.4) | 71.8 (6.04) | Other | Hippocampus (hippocampal tail, subiculum, CA1, hippocampal fissure, presubiculum, parasubiculum, molecular layer, granule cell layer/DG, CA3, CA4, fimbria, HATA) | Prospective | Automated | Volume reductions in the left hippocampus and subregions (molecular layer, CA1, CA4, CA3 and tail) were found in SCD compared with HC. |
Zhao et al. (2019a) | 42 | 35 | 64.24 (6.16) | 64.53 (7.29) | Memory clinic | Hippocampus (hippocampal tail, parasubiculum, presubiculum, subiculum, CA1, CA3, CA4, HATA, GC-DG, molecular layer, fimbria, hippocampal fissure) | Prospective | Automated | Volume reductions in the left hippocampus and subregions (hippocampal tail, subiculum, presubiculum, GC-ML-DG and CA4), right presubiculum and right fimbria in SCD compared with HC. |
Zhao et al. (2019b) | 48 | 40 | 64.71 (7.69) | 65.08 (7.94) | Memory clinic | Hippocampus Amygdala Lateral ventricle Third ventricle Frontal lobe Occipital lobe Temporal lobe Parietal lobe Cingulate lobe Insular areas | Prospective | Automated | Volume reductions in the bilateral hippocampus, amygdala, cingulate, insula, frontal, occipital and temporal lobes in SCD compared with HC. |
Cortical thickness
Sample | Age | Sample recruitment | Study type | Main results | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Control | SCI | Control | SCI | ||||
Eliassen et al. (2017) [61] | - | 38 | - | 59 (8.3) | Memory clinic | Prospective | Focal cortical thinning was found in the bilateral EC in SCD compared with HC. |
Fan et al. (2017) | 34 | 43 | 67.8 (7.4) | 66.1 (7.0) | Memory clinic | Prospective | Focal cortical thinning was found in the left parahippocampal, perirhinal and EC and in the right parahippocampal and perirhinal in SCD compared with HC. |
Hong et al. (2014) [62] | 23 | 47 | 66.4 (6.9) | 63.2 (7.5) | Memory clinic | Prospective | No significant differences were found between SCD and HC. |
Lauriola et al. (2017) [63] | 38 | 32 | 64.0 (5.1) | 64.8 (6.3) | Other | Prospective | Focal cortical thinning was found in the left medial orbitofrontal in SCD compared with HC. |
Marcotte et al. (2019) [44] | 29 | 68 | 70 (6.3) | 71 (6.4) | Other | Prospective | No significant differences were found between SCD and HC. |
Meiberth et al. (2015) [64] | 69 | 41 | 66.1 (6.9) | 68.9 (7.2) | Memory clinic | Prospective | Focal cortical thinning was found in left EC in SCD compared with HC. |
Niemantsverdriet et al. (2018) [65] | 93 | 102 | 67.3(8.5) | 68.6 (9.8) | Memory clinic | Retrospective | No significant differences were found between SCD and HC. |
Schultz et al. (2015) [49] | 184 | 77 | 54.33 (6.10) | 54.41 (6.44) | Other | Prospective | Focal cortical thinning was found in the EC, fusiform, posterior cingulate and inferior parietal cortex in SCD compared with HC. |
Selnes et al. (2012) [13] | 21 | 16 | 62 (49-77) | 59.2 (45-71) | Memory clinic | Prospective | No significant differences were found between SCD and HC. |
Factors determining the statistical significance of findings
Quality assessment
Reference | Selection | Comparability | Exposure | Total | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adequate definition | Representativeness | Selection of controls | Definition of controls | Ascertainment | Method | Non-response rate | |||
Beckett et al. (2015) [31] | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 7 | ||
Caillaud et al. (2020) [32] | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 8 | |
Cantero et al. (2016) [33] | * | * | ** | * | * | 6 | |||
Cherbuin et al. (2015) [34] | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 7 | ||
* | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 8 | ||
Choi et al. (2015) [18] | * | * | * | * | * | 5 | |||
Cong et al. (2018) [35] | * | ** | * | * | 5 | ||||
Dong et al. (2020) [19] | * | * | ** | * | * | 6 | |||
Eliassen et al. (2017) [61] | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 6 | ||
Erk et al. (2011) [20] | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 6 | ||
Fan et al. (2017) | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 6 | ||
Flier et al. (2004) [38] | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 7 | |
* | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 8 | ||
Hong et al. (2014) [62] | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 7 | ||
Hong et al. (2015) [23] | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 7 | ||
Ivanoiu et al. (2015) [39] | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * | 9 |
Jessen et al. (2006) [40] | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 8 | |
Kim et al. (2013) [56] | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 8 | |
Kiuchi et al. (2014) [11] | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 8 | |
Lauriola et al. (2017) [63] | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 7 | ||
Liang et al. (2020) [24] | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 8 | |
Lim et al. (2019) [66] | * | * | * | * | * | * | 6 | ||
Lindberg et al. (2017) [41] | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 8 | |
López-Sanz et al. (2017) [42] | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 7 | ||
López-Sanz et al. (2016) [43] | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 7 | ||
Marcotte et al. (2019) [44] | * | * | ** | * | * | 6 | |||
Meiberth et al. (2015) [64] | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 8 | |
Niemantsverdriet et al. (2018) [65] | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 8 | |
Parker et al. (2020) [25] | * | * | * | * | * | 5 | |||
Perrotin et al. (2015) [26] | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 8 | |
Perrotin et al. (2017) [12] | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 8 | |
Platero et al. (2018) | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 8 | |
Risacher et al. (2020) [45] | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 7 | ||
Rogne et al. (2016) [46] | * | * | ** | * | * | 6 | |||
Ryu et al. (2017) [47] | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 8 | |
Sánchez-Benavides et al. (2018) | * | * | ** | * | * | 6 | |||
Saykin et al. (2006) [27] | * | * | ** | * | * | 6 | |||
Scheef et al. (2019) [48] | * | * | ** | * | * | 6 | |||
Scheef et al. (2012) [28] | * | * | ** | * | * | 6 | |||
Schultz et al. (2015) [49] | ** | * | * | 4 | |||||
Selnes et al. (2012) [13] | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 8 | |
Shu et al. (2018) [50] | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 7 | |
Striepens et al. (2010) [51] | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 7 | |
Sun et al. (2016) [29] | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 7 | |
Tepest et al. (2008) [52] | * | * | * | * | * | * | 6 | ||
van Rooden et al. (2018) [53] | * | ** | * | * | 5 | ||||
Wang et al. (2006) | * | * | ** | * | * | 6 | |||
Xue et al. (2020) [30] | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 7 | ||
Yue et al. (2018) [54] | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 8 | |
Zajac et al. (2020) [55] | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 7 | ||
Zhao et al. (2019a) | * | * | * | * | * | * | 6 | ||
Zhao et al. (2019b) | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 7 |