. 2021 May 6;32(2):193–227. doi: 10.1007/s11065-021-09495-3

Table 2.

Summary of meta-analysis results for saccadic eye movements

Condition	Saccade paradigm	Outcome	Comparison	k	Participants N_P/N_C	Effect estimates SMD (95% CI)	Z	p - value	Heterogeneity estimates				Reference Figure
									Chi²	p - value	I² (%)	Tau²
Gap	PS	Latency	C vs. P	27	560/717	0.30[0.13, 0.46]	3.50	< 0.001	51.10	0.002	49	0.09	Fig. 4A
			C vs. ADD	19	352/464	0.39[0.17, 0.62]	3.44	< 0.001	41.19	< 0.001	56	0.14	Fig. 2A
			C vs. MCI	8	208/253	0.09[-0.10, 0.28]	0.95	0.34	3.65	0.82	0	0.00	Fig. 2B
			MCI vs. ADD	8	208/162	0.45[0.08, 0.81]	2.40	0.02	19.66	0.006	64	0.18	Fig. 2C
	AS	Latency	C vs. P	15	541/508	0.44[0.21, 0.66]	3.84	< 0.001	41.86	< 0.001	67	0.13	Fig. 4B
			C vs. ADD	8	251/508	0.55[0.15, 0.95]	2.67	0.008	42.23	< 0.001	83	0.28	Fig. 3A
			C vs. MCI	7	290/463	0.35[0.10, 0.60]	2.79	0.005	15.16	0.02	60	0.07	Fig. 3B
			MCI vs. ADD	6	290/206	0. 30[-0.07, 0.67]	1.58	0.11	24.37	< 0.001	75	0.19	Fig. 3C
		Error	C vs. P	12	424/381	1.16[0.72, 1.60]	5.17	< 0.001	80.64	< 0.001	86	0.50	Fig. 4C
			C vs. ADD	7	198/381	1.59[1.09, 2.09]	6.18	< 0.001	33.97	< 0.001	82	0.36	Fig. 4A
			C vs. MCI	5	226/263	0.55[0.14, 0.97]	2.59	0.009	15.57	0.004	74	0.17	Fig. 4B
			MCI vs. ADD	5	143/226	0.53[-0.11, 1.17]	1.62	0.11	32.15	< 0.001	88	0.46	Fig. 4C
Step	PS	Latency	C vs. P	5	97/96	0.67[0.33, 1.01]	3.84	< 0.001	5.09	0.28	21	0.03	Fig. 5A
Step	AS	Latency	C vs. P	3	61/30	0.74[0.10, 1.39]	2.27	0.02	3.90	0.14	49	0.16	Fig. 5B
		Error	C vs. P	4	91/59	1.18[0.82, 1.54]	6.37	< 0.001	0.46	0.93	0	0.00	Fig. 5C
Overlap	PS	Latency	C vs. P	20	509/526	0.34[0.14, 0.55]	3.31	< 0.001	39.79	0.003	52	0.11	Fig. 6A
			C vs. ADD	13	241/332	0.50[0.22, 0.79]	3.44	< 0.001	30.00	0.003	60	0.16	Fig. 2A
			C vs. MCI	7	168/194	0.08[-0.14, 0.29]	0.70	0.48	2.85	0.83	0	0.00	Fig. 2B
			MCI vs. ADD	6	134/168	0.26[-0.27, 0.79]	0.98	0.33	22.64	< 0.001	78	0.38	Fig. 2C
	AS	Latency	C vs. P	6	156/173	0.72[0.21, 1.24]	2.75	0.006	24.32	< 0.001	79	0.33	Fig. 6B
		Error	C vs. P	4	86/114	1.04[0.29, 1.78]	2.73	0.006	17.34	< 0.001	83	0.47	Fig. 6C
Gap, Step, & Overlap	PS & AS	Gap-effect (gap vs. step/overlap)	C vs. C	12	500	1.25[0.91, 1.59]	7.29	< 0.001	58.79	< 0.001	81	0.27	Fig. 7A
			P vs. P	16	361	1.23[0.83, 1.63]	6.07	< 0.001	83.92	< 0.001	82	0.51	Fig. 7B
			ADD vs. ADD	11	218	1.29[0.81, 1.76]	5.26	< 0.001	48.34	< 0.001	79	0.49	Fig. 1A
			MCI vs. MCI	5	143	1.12[0.33, 1.92]	2.76	0.006	34.70	< 0.001	88	0.71	Fig. 1B
Gap, Step, & Overlap	PS & AS	Anti-effect (PS vs. AS)	C vs. C	10	494	1.16[0.59, 1.73]	3.99	< 0.001	136.7	< 0.001	93	0.77	Fig. 8A
			P vs. P	15	411	0.99[0.71, 1.26]	7.12	< 0.001	46.38	< 0.001	70	0.20	Fig. 8B
			ADD vs. ADD	9	204	0.90[0.55, 1.25]	5.03	< 0.001	22.75	0.004	65	0.19	Fig. 1A
			MCI vs. MCI	6	207	1.11[0.65, 1.57]	4.74	< 0.001	23.05	< 0.001	78	0.25	Fig. 1B

Some studies included patients with ADD and MCI, and each of these non-independent comparisons was included. The gap effect and anti-effect comparisons of participants reflect only within-group comparisons

C Controls, ADD Dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, MCI Mild cognitive impairment,SMD Standardized mean difference, k Number of effect sizes, P Patients, N_PNumber of patients, N_C Number of controls