Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24072534›Full record

SynthesisCurrent HIV/AIDS reports2013

Validity of cognitive screens for HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder: a systematic review and an informed screen selection guide.

Jody Kamminga, Lucette A Cysique, Grace Lu, Jennifer Batchelor, Bruce J Brew

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Current HIV/AIDS reports, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jody KammingaSt Vincent's Clinical School, St. Vincent's Hospital Applied Medical Research Centre, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, j.kamminga@neura.edu.au.
Lucette A Cysique
Grace Lu
Jennifer Batchelor
Bruce J Brew
UNSW Sydney · AUMacquarie University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Various screening tools have been proposed to identify HIV-Associated Neurocognitive Disorder (HAND). However, there has been no systematic review of their strengths and weaknesses in detecting HAND when compared to gold standard neuropsychological testing. Thirty-five studies assessing HAND screens that were conducted in the era of combination antiretroviral therapy were retrieved using standard search procedures. Of those, 19 (54 %) compared their screen to standard neuropsychological testing. Studies were characterised by a wide variation in criterion validity primarily due to non-standard definition of neurocognitive impairment, and to the demographic and clinical heterogeneity of samples. Assessment of construct validity was lacking, and longitudinal useability was not established. To address these limitations, the current review proposed a summary of the most sensitive and specific studies (>70 %), as well as providing explicit caution regarding their weaknesses, and recommendations for their use in HIV primary care settings.

Indexed as

Cognition DisordersHIV InfectionsHumansMass ScreeningNeuropsychological TestsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID24072534
PMCPMC3851699
OpenAlexW2027689834

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.