Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18504479›Full record

ArticleMedscape journal of medicine2008

A computerized test battery sensitive to mild and severe brain injury.

C Thomas Gualtieri, Lynda G Johnson

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medscape journal of medicine, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Persistent problems 1 year after mild traumatic brain injury: a longitudinal population study in New Zealand.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2016
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

C Thomas GualtieriDepartment of Neuropsychiatry, North Carolina Neuropsychiatry Clinics, Chapel Hill & Charlotte, North Carolina, USA. tgualtieri@ncneuropsych.com
Lynda G Johnson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveComputerized neurocognitive testing (CNT) appears to be suited to measure relatively mild degrees of neurocognitive impairment in circumstances where speed, efficiency, and low cost are important. Computerized tests are used in the evaluation and management of patients who have had mild brain injuries; the objective is to determine if computerized testing is equally reliable and valid in the evaluation of patients who have had more severe brain injuries.

designA cross-sectional, naturalistic study of brain injury patients compared with normal controls.

settingAn outpatient neuropsychiatry clinic.

participants141 patients, aged 18-65 years, who had sustained traumatic brain injuries (TBIs): 13 patients with postconcussion syndrome; 15 who had recovered from mild brain injuries; 85 patients who had had severe brain injuries, but who had recovered, and were living independently; and 28 severe brain injury patients who were unable to live without assistance; compared with 145 normal controls.

interventionsNot applicable.

main outcome measuresThe CNS Vital Signs (CNS VS) battery is a PC-based system that includes tests of verbal and visual memory, psychomotor speed, complex attention, reaction time, and cognitive flexibility.

resultsPerformance on the CNS VS battery was related to severity of brain injury and degree of recovery. Tests of psychomotor speed and cognitive flexibility were the most relevant to TBI status. Patients who had recovered from mild brain injuries scored almost as well as normal controls. The Neurocognition Index (NCI), a summary score based on performance on all the tests in the battery, was 100 for normal controls and 98 for recovered mild brain injury patients. Postconcussive patients scored 82 on the MCI, and severe brain injury patients scored 66 on the NCI if they were living independently and 47 if they were not.

conclusionsComputerized tests like CNS VS allow clinicians the advantage of precise neurocognitive measurement in the service of diagnosis and appropriate treatment. CNTs are never going to replace the flexibility or comprehensiveness of conventional neuropsychological testing, but they have a role to play in circumstances where a full test battery is not feasible, such as screening and serial assessment.

Indexed as

SoftwareUser-Computer InterfaceAdolescentAdultAgedBrain InjuriesCognition DisordersCross-Sectional StudiesDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNervous System DiseasesReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID18504479
PMCPMC2390690

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.