Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27149906›Full record

ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association2016

The validity of the Memory Alteration Test and the Test Your Memory test for community-based identification of amnestic mild cognitive impairment.

Seline Ozer, Krist Noonan, Melanie Burke, John Young, Sally Barber, Anne Forster, Roy Jones

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors.

Seline OzerAcademic Unit of Elderly Care and Rehabilitation, University of Leeds, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, United Kingdom; School of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom. Electronic address: seline.ozer@bthft.nhs.uk.
Krist NoonanResearch Institute for the Care of Older People (RICE), Bath, United Kingdom.
Melanie BurkeSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
John YoungAcademic Unit of Elderly Care and Rehabilitation, University of Leeds, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, United Kingdom.
Sally BarberAcademic Unit of Elderly Care and Rehabilitation, University of Leeds, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, United Kingdom.
Anne ForsterAcademic Unit of Elderly Care and Rehabilitation, University of Leeds, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, United Kingdom.
Roy JonesResearch Institute for the Care of Older People (RICE), Bath, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-0211-24044
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThis study investigated the validity of two brief cognitive tests (Memory Alteration Test [M@T] and Test Your Memory [TYM] test) for identifying people with aMCI in the community.

methodsOlder people were invited to participate by their general practitioner practice. Eligible participants were assessed for aMCI using an operationalized approach to the Petersen criteria and the M@T and TYM.

resultsBoth tests demonstrated significant ability in discriminating between people with aMCI and controls (AUC = 0.91 for M@T and 0.80 for TYM [P < .001 for both]). M@T performed with higher sensitivity than TYM (85% vs. 63%) and similar specificity (84% vs. 87%). Both tests demonstrated moderate test-retest reliability (κ = ∼0.5) and took <10 minutes to administer. DISCUSSION: M@T and TYM are quick to administer. M@T demonstrated higher diagnostic test accuracy than TYM and could provide an efficient method for identifying aMCI in clinical and research settings.

Indexed as

Neuropsychological TestsAgedAge FactorsCognitive DysfunctionEducational StatusFemaleGeneral PracticeHumansIntelligenceMaleReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySex FactorsTime FactorsAlzheimer's diseaseDementiaDiagnostic test accuracyMild cognitive impairmentNeuropsychological assessmentReliabilityValidity

Identifiers

PMID27149906
PMCPMC5021179

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.