Table 3—

Domain scores from studies that could not be explored further meta-analytically

Cognitive domains
First author (ref.)	Group 1	Group 2	Overall intelligence	Working memory	Learning immediate memory	Delayed memory	Psychomotor efficiency	Speed of information process	Motor speed	Attention	Cognitive flexibility	Visual perception	Language
Hung et al. (33)	Poor MC	Good MC	—	0.18	−0.71	—	—	—	—	—	0.17	—	—
Skenazy et al. (19)	Vis imp	Non vis imp	0.23	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.29
Holmes (7)	Poor MC	Good MC	−0.31	—	—	—	—	−0.53	0.38	—	—	—	—
Holmes et al. (34)	Poor MC	Good MC	−0.10	—	—	—	0.14	−0.73	0.64	—	—	—	—
Prescott et al. (35)	Good MC	Good MC	—	—	0	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Widom et al. (21)	Poor MC	Good MC	—	—	—	—	−0.33	—	—	0.17	0.89	—	—
Ryan et al. (27)	Compl	No compl	0.23	—	−0.24	—	—	—	−0.80	−0.28	0.10	−0.35	—
Gold et al. (38)	IHA	NHA	−0.33	—	—	—	0	—	—	—	—	—	—
Maran et al. (28)	Poor MC	Good MC	—	—	—	—	—	0.45	—	—	—	—	—
Kramer et al. (30)	Poor MC	Good MC	0.28	—	—	—	0	—	—	—	—	—	—
Strachan et al. (42)	IHA	NHA	—	—	−0.10	−0.13	−0.77	0	—	−0.63	−0.54	—	—
Ferguson et al. (8)	R	No R	−0.31	—	—	—	−0.48	−0.59	—	−0.40	−0.34	—	—

Data are Cohen’s d. Negative effects sizes reflect worse performance in group 1. Compl, diabetes complications; IHA, impaired awareness of hypoglycemia; MC, metabolic control; NHA, normal awareness of hypoglycemia; Vis imp, visually impaired; R, retinopathy.