ArticleNeuropsychiatric disease and treatment2015
Focus group reflections on the current and future state of cognitive assessment tools in geriatric health care.
Article in Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The application of saccades to assess cognitive impairment among older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2023Pooled it
- Benchmarking speech biomarkers of Alzheimer's against cognitive and neural measures.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Article
- Deep Convolutional Neural Networks and Transfer Learning for Measuring Cognitive Impairment Using Eye-Tracking in a Distributed Tablet-Based Environment.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2021Article
- The intersection between the oculomotor and hippocampal memory systems: empirical developments and clinical implications.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2020Review
- VisMET: a passive, efficient, and sensitive assessment of visuospatial memory in healthy aging, mild cognitive impairment, and Alzheimer's disease.Learning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study provides insight into the thoughts and opinions of geriatric health-care professionals toward cognitive assessments and the use of emerging technologies, such as eye-tracking, to supplement current tools.
methodsTwo focus group sessions were conducted with nurses and physicians who routinely administer neurocognitive assessments to geriatric populations. Video recordings of the focus group sessions were transcribed and a thematic analysis was performed.
resultsParticipants reported the need for assessment and diagnostic tools that are accessible and efficient, and that are capable of accommodating the rapid growth in the aging population. The prevalence of more complex ailments experienced by older adults has had repercussions in the quality of care that the clients receive, and has contributed to lengthy wait times and resource shortages. Health-care professionals stated that they are hampered by the disjointed structure of the health-care system and that they would benefit from a more efficient allocation of responsibilities made possible through tools that did not require extensive training or certification. Eyetracking-based cognitive assessments were thought to strongly complement this system, yet it was thought that difficulty would be faced in gaining the support and increased uptake by health-care professionals due to the nonintuitive relationship between eyetracking and cognition.
conclusionThe findings suggest that health-care professionals are receptive to the use of eyetracking technology to assess for cognitive health as it would conserve resources by allowing frontline staff to administer assessments with minimal training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.