Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18982912›Full record

ReviewClinical interventions in aging2008

Mild cognitive impairment: conceptual, assessment, ethical, and social issues.

Perla Werner, Amos D Korczyn

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical interventions in aging, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. A novel technology to screen for cognitive impairment in the elderly.American journal of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias · 2011
    Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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.

Perla WernerDepartment of Gerontology, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel. werner@research.haifa.ac.il
Amos D Korczyn

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is defined as a condition characterized by newly acquired cognitive decline to an extent that is beyond that expected for age or educational background, yet not causing significant functional impairment. The concept of MCI has received considerable attention in the literature over the past few years, and aspects related to its definition, prevalence, and evolution have been extensively studied and reviewed. Here we attempt to synthesize the implications of the current status of this entity, focusing on the conceptual, methodological, and, in particular, the social and ethical aspects of MCI which have attracted less attention. We discuss the weaknesses of the concept of MCI, which is heterogeneous in etiology, manifestations, and outcomes, and suggest that the emergence of the syndrome at this stage reflects industrial interests related to possible development of drugs for this disorder. On the other hand, the formal diagnosis of MCI, with its implications that the person may develop dementia, may have a grave impact on the psychological state of the individual, at a stage when prediction of outcome is tenuous and possibilities of useful interventions are meager. We present suggestions for the direction of future research in these areas.

Indexed as

Ethics, MedicalActivities of Daily LivingAgedCognition DisordersGeriatric AssessmentHumansPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesSeverity of Illness Index

Identifiers

PMID18982912
PMCPMC2682374

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.