Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22203824›Full record

ArticleDementia and geriatric cognitive disorders extra2011

Long latency and high variability in accuracy-speed of prosaccades in Alzheimer's disease at mild to moderate stage.

Qing Yang, Tao Wang, Ning Su, Yuanyuan Liu, Shifu Xiao, Zoi Kapoula

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders extra, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Eye movements in Alzheimer's disease.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2015
    Review
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

6 authors.

Qing YangIRIS Group, UMR 8194, CNRS, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris, France.
Tao Wang
Ning Su
Yuanyuan Liu
Shifu Xiao
Zoi Kapoula

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStudying saccades is a useful tool to investigate brain function. There is still controversy regarding deficits in prosaccades in Alzheimer's disease (AD), and a study of saccades in subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) has not been published to date.

methodsWe examined horizontal saccades in 10 healthy elderly, and 9 MCI and 9 AD patients. Two tasks were used: gap (fixation target extinguishes prior to target onset) and overlap (fixation stays on after target onset). Eye movements were recorded with the Skalar IRIS system.

results(1) Latencies were shorter in the gap than in the overlap task (a gap effect) in all three groups of subjects: healthy elderly, MCI and AD; (2) for both tasks, latency of saccades was longer for AD patients than for healthy and MCI subjects, and (3) accuracy and mean velocity were normal in MCI and AD subjects, however, variability in accuracy-speed was higher for AD patients than for healthy and MCI subjects in the overlap task.

conclusionsAbnormalities in reaction time and accuracy-speed variability reflect deficits in cerebral areas involved in the triggering and execution of saccades; a saccade test can be useful to follow up the evolution of MCI subjects as some of them may develop AD disease.

Indexed as

Alzheimer's diseaseGapMild cognitive impairmentOverlapSaccadesVariability

Identifiers

PMID22203824
PMCPMC3246280

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.