Dorien Bangma

104 | CHAPTER 4 interpreted with caution. Furthermore, the funnel plots (Fig. 3) cannot sufficiently confirm or exclude the possibility of publication bias because of the relatively small number of studies for each NDD group. Observed asymmetry might also be the result of heterogeneity between studies and the random-effects method used (Deeks et al., 2019). Third, the present study was not preregistered. For reasons of transparency, reproducibility and rigor this should have be done. Finally, no evaluation of the risk of bias has been executed. According to our knowledge, there is no valid and reliable tool available for the evaluation of the risk of bias for cross- sectional studies as included in the current review. The inability to appropriately evaluate the risk of bias and publication bias of the included studies, together with the moderate to high heterogeneity between studies, therefore need to be considered when interpreting the results. Conclusion Taking these limitations into account, there is ample evidence that people living with an NDD are vulnerable for impairments in their capacity to make financial decisions. FDM performance in people living with an NDD appears to be related to cognitive decline, specifically in working memory, processing speed and numeracy. However, the number of studies focusing on FDM in people living with an NDD other than AD or MCI are limited or have not been performed to date. Further research is thus necessary to further elaborate this topic. Furthermore, the associations between the observed problems with FDM and difficulties in everyday life remain unclear. It is conceivable that problems with FDM can lead to major negative consequences in the everyday lives of people with living with an NDD and their relatives and can result in debts or poverty. A focus on more multidimensional research on FDM and an emphasis on the ecological validity of current and new FDM tests is therefore recommended.