Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26836171›Full record

ArticleJournal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD2016

Measuring Information Processing Speed in Mild Cognitive Impairment: Clinical Versus Research Dichotomy.

Judy Haworth, Michelle Phillips, Margaret Newson, Peter J Rogers, Anna Torrens-Burton, Andrea Tales

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Judy HaworthSouthmead Hospital, North Bristol Trust, Bristol, UK.
Michelle PhillipsUniversity of Bristol, Centre of Academic Mental Health, Oakfield House, Oakfield Grove, Bristol, UK.
Margaret NewsonBrain Centre, Elgar House, Southmead Hospital, North Bristol Trust, Bristol, UK.
Peter J RogersSchool of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Anna Torrens-BurtonDepartment of Psychology, Swansea University, Swansea, Wales, UK.
Andrea TalesDepartment of Psychology, Swansea University, Swansea, Wales, UK.
North Bristol NHS Trust · GBSwansea University · GBUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A substantial body of research evidence is indicative of disproportionately slowed information processing speed in a wide range of multi-trial, computer-based, neuroimaging- and electroencephalography-based reaction time (RT) tests in Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). However, in what is arguably a dichotomy between research evidence and clinical practice, RT associated with different brain functions is rarely assessed as part of their diagnosis. Indeed, often only the time taken to perform a single, specific task, commonly the Trail making test (TMT), is measured. In clinical practice therefore, there can be a failure to assess adequately the integrity of the rapid, serial information processing and response, necessary for efficient, appropriate, and safe interaction with the environment. We examined whether a typical research-based RT task could at least match the TMT in differentiating amnestic MCI (aMCI) from cognitively healthy aging at group level. As aMCI is a heterogeneous group, typically containing only a proportion of individuals for whom aMCI represents the early stages of dementia, we examined the ability of each test to provide intra-group performance variation. The results indicate that as well as significant slowing in performance of the operations involved in TMT part B (but not part A), individuals with aMCI also experience significant slowing in RT compared to controls. The results also suggest that research-typical RT tests may be superior to the TMT in differentiating between cognitively healthy aging and aMCI at group level and in revealing the performance variability one would expect from an etiologically heterogeneous disorder such as aMCI.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAttentionCognitive DysfunctionElectroencephalographyFemaleHumansMaleMental ProcessesMental Status ScheduleMiddle AgedNeuroimagingNeuropsychological TestsPhotic StimulationReaction TimeResidence CharacteristicsDementiainformation processing speedmild cognitive impairmentreaction time

Identifiers

PMID26836171
PMCPMC4927828
OpenAlexW2274424338

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.