Mapping the association between cognitive disengagement syndrome and internalizing disorders: A systematic scoping review with meta-analysis and meta-regression

Le résumé fourni par la source

Cognitive Disengagement Syndrome (CDS), previously known as Sluggish Cognitive Tempo, has increasingly been recognized as a construct distinct from ADHD inattention yet strongly associated with internalizing disorders. This scoping review synthesized evidence from 82 studies published between 2002 and 2025, combining narrative synthesis with three-level meta-analysis and meta-regression. Across healthy and clinical samples, individuals with elevated CDS consistently showed higher rates of depression and anxiety, with more than one-third reaching clinical thresholds. Associations remained significant after controlling for ADHD inattention and were observed in children, adolescents, and adults. Longitudinal evidence suggested that CDS may operate as a developmental risk factor for later depression, though findings for anxiety were less consistent. Despite robust evidence of comorbidity, very few studies examined the functional consequences of CDS-internalizing overlap, and none employed analytic strategies to address symptom overlap, despite substantial phenomenological similarities. Meta-analyses confirmed moderate-to-strong associations, with the strongest link for depression (r = 0.56), followed by anxiety (r = 0.46) and broader internalizing symptoms (r = 0.44). Meta-regression identified depression as a significant moderator and revealed inflated effect sizes in same-informant studies, while demographic factors such as age, sex, population type, and sample size did not significantly account for variability. These findings support the conceptualization of CDS as a structurally distinct yet transdiagnostic construct, particularly tied to depressive symptomatology. However, methodological limitations, including scarce longitudinal and multi-informant studies, lack of symptom-overlap controls, and limited evidence on functional outcomes, constrain clinical interpretation and highlight the need for more rigorous, developmentally informed research.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.