Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25422675›Full record

ArticleAlzheimer's research & therapy2014

BrainCheck - a very brief tool to detect incipient cognitive decline: optimized case-finding combining patient- and informant-based data.

Michael M Ehrensperger, Kirsten I Taylor, Manfred Berres, Nancy S Foldi, Myriam Dellenbach, Irene Bopp, Gabriel Gold, Armin von Gunten, Daniel Inglin, René Müri and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Conversion between the Brief assessment of Impaired Cognition, Brief Assessment of Impaired Cognition Questionnaire, and Mini-Mental State Examination in a mixed clinical sample.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

13 authors.

Michael M EhrenspergerMemory Clinic, University Center for Medicine of Aging Basel, Felix Platter-Spital, Schanzenstrasse 55, 4031 Basel, Switzerland.
Kirsten I TaylorMemory Clinic, University Center for Medicine of Aging Basel, Felix Platter-Spital, Schanzenstrasse 55, 4031 Basel, Switzerland ; Centre for Speech, Language and the Brain, Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EB UK.
Manfred BerresDepartment of Mathematics and Technology, University of Applied Sciences, Koblenz, Joseph-Rovan-Allee 2, 53424 Remagen, Germany.
Nancy S FoldiDepartment of Psychology, Queens College and The Graduate Center of The City University of New York, 65-30 Kissena Blvd., NSB-E318, Flushing, NY 11367 USA.
Myriam DellenbachCenter for Gerontology, University of Zurich, Sumatrastrasse 30, 8006 Zurich, Switzerland ; Currently: Center for Medical Education, Max-Daetwyler-Platz 2, 3014 Berne, Switzerland.
Irene BoppDepartment of Geriatrics, Town Hospital Waid, Tièchestrasse 99, 8037 Zurich, Switzerland.
Gabriel GoldDepartment of Internal Medicine, Rehabilitation and Geriatrics, University of Geneva, Ch. du Pont-Bochet 3, 1226 Thônex, Switzerland.
Armin von GuntenDepartment of Old Age Psychiatry, University of Lausanne, Route du Mont, 1008 Prilly, Switzerland.
Daniel InglinDepartment of Geriatrics, General Hospital, Rorschacher Strasse 94, 9000 St. Gallen, Switzerland.
René MüriDepartment of Neurology, University Hospital, Inselspital, 3010 Berne, Switzerland.
Brigitte RüeggerDepartment of Geriatrics, Town Hospital Waid, Tièchestrasse 99, 8037 Zurich, Switzerland.
Reto W KressigUniversity Center for Medicine of Aging Basel, Felix Platter-Spital, Burgfelderstrasse 101, 4055 Basel, Switzerland.
Andreas U MonschMemory Clinic, University Center for Medicine of Aging Basel, Felix Platter-Spital, Schanzenstrasse 55, 4031 Basel, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionOptimal identification of subtle cognitive impairment in the primary care setting requires a very brief tool combining (a) patients' subjective impairments, (b) cognitive testing, and (c) information from informants. The present study developed a new, very quick and easily administered case-finding tool combining these assessments ('BrainCheck') and tested the feasibility and validity of this instrument in two independent studies.

methodsWe developed a case-finding tool comprised of patient-directed (a) questions about memory and depression and (b) clock drawing, and (c) the informant-directed 7-item version of the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE). Feasibility study: 52 general practitioners rated the feasibility and acceptance of the patient-directed tool. Validation study: An independent group of 288 Memory Clinic patients (mean ± SD age = 76.6 ± 7.9, education = 12.0 ± 2.6; 53.8% female) with diagnoses of mild cognitive impairment (n = 80), probable Alzheimer's disease (n = 185), or major depression (n = 23) and 126 demographically matched, cognitively healthy volunteer participants (age = 75.2 ± 8.8, education = 12.5 ± 2.7; 40% female) partook. All patient and healthy control participants were administered the patient-directed tool, and informants of 113 patient and 70 healthy control participants completed the very short IQCODE.

resultsFeasibility study: General practitioners rated the patient-directed tool as highly feasible and acceptable. Validation study: A Classification and Regression Tree analysis generated an algorithm to categorize patient-directed data which resulted in a correct classification rate (CCR) of 81.2% (sensitivity = 83.0%, specificity = 79.4%). Critically, the CCR of the combined patient- and informant-directed instruments (BrainCheck) reached nearly 90% (that is 89.4%; sensitivity = 97.4%, specificity = 81.6%).

conclusionA new and very brief instrument for general practitioners, 'BrainCheck', combined three sources of information deemed critical for effective case-finding (that is, patients' subject impairments, cognitive testing, informant information) and resulted in a nearly 90% CCR. Thus, it provides a very efficient and valid tool to aid general practitioners in deciding whether patients with suspected cognitive impairments should be further evaluated or not ('watchful waiting').

Identifiers

PMID25422675
PMCPMC4241397

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.