Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22073256›Full record

ArticlePloS one2011

Diagnostic accuracy, effectiveness and cost for cognitive impairment and dementia screening of three short cognitive tests applicable to illiterates.

Cristóbal Carnero-Pardo, Beatriz Espejo-Martínez, Samuel López-Alcalde, María Espinosa-García, Carmen Sáez-Zea, Elisa Hernández-Torres, José Luis Navarro-Espigares, Rosa Vílchez-Carrillo

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06058611 (Effects of a Personalised and Tailored Computerised Cognitive Stimulation Programme Versus Stimulating Leisure Activities in Older Adults with Mild Cognitive Impairment and Subjective Cognitive Impairment), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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.

NCT06058611 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Effects of a Personalised and Tailored Computerised Cognitive Stimulation Programme Versus Stimulating Leisure Activities in Older Adults with Mild Cognitive Impairment and Subjective Cognitive Impairment: Randomised Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversidad de ZaragozaRan2024 to 2025Enrolled90ConditionsMild Cognitive Impairment, Randomized Controlled Trial, Subjective Cognitive ImpairmentArmsCognitive stimulation, Stimulating leisure activities
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Cognitive Screening Instruments for Older Adults with Low Educational and Literacy Levels: A Systematic Review.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. World-Wide FINGERS Network: A global approach to risk reduction and prevention of dementia.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

8 authors.

Cristóbal Carnero-PardoServicio de Neurología, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain. ccarnero@neurocenter.es
Beatriz Espejo-Martínez
Samuel López-Alcalde
María Espinosa-García
Carmen Sáez-Zea
Elisa Hernández-Torres
José Luis Navarro-Espigares
Rosa Vílchez-Carrillo

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIlliteracy, a universal problem, limits the utilization of the most widely used short cognitive tests. Our objective was to assess and compare the effectiveness and cost for cognitive impairment (CI) and dementia (DEM) screening of three short cognitive tests applicable to illiterates.

methodsPhase III diagnostic test evaluation study was performed during one year in four Primary Care centers, prospectively including individuals with suspicion of CI or DEM. All underwent the Eurotest, Memory Alteration Test (M@T), and Phototest, applied in a balanced manner. Clinical, functional, and cognitive studies were independently performed in a blinded fashion in a Cognitive Behavioral Neurology Unit, and the gold standard diagnosis was established by consensus of expert neurologists on the basis of these results. Effectiveness of tests was assessed as the proportion of correct diagnoses (diagnostic accuracy [DA]) and the kappa index of concordance (k) with respect to gold standard diagnoses. Costs were based on public prices at the time and hospital accounts.

resultsThe study included 139 individuals: 47 with DEM, 36 with CI, and 56 without CI. No significant differences in effectiveness were found among the tests. For DEM screening: Eurotest (k = 0.71 [0.59-0.83], DA = 0.87 [0.80-0.92]), M@T (k = 0.72 [0.60-0.84], DA = 0.87 [0.80-0.92]), Phototest (k = 0.70 [0.57-0.82], DA = 0.86 [0.79-0.91]). For CI screening: Eurotest (k = 0.67 [0.55-0.79]; DA = 0.83 [0.76-0.89]), M@T (k = 0.52 [0.37-0.67]; DA = 0.80 [0.72-0.86]), Phototest (k = 0.59 [0.46-0.72]; DA = 0.79 [0.71-0.86]). There were no differences in the cost of DEM screening, but the cost of CI screening was significantly higher with M@T (330.7 ± 177.1 €, mean ± sd) than with Eurotest (294.1 ± 195.0 €) or Phototest (296.0 ± 196. 5 €). Application time was shorter with Phototest (2.8 ± 0.8 min) than with Eurotest (7.1 ± 1.8 min) or M@T (6.8 ± 2.2 min).

conclusionsEurotest, M@T, and Phototest are equally effective. Eurotest and Phototest are both less expensive options but Phototest is the most efficient, requiring the shortest application time.

Indexed as

Educational StatusAgedAged, 80 and overCognition DisordersDementiaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID22073256
PMCPMC3206887

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.