Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27325690›Full record

Observational studyClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2016

A Screening Strategy for HIV-Associated Neurocognitive Disorders That Accurately Identifies Patients Requiring Neurological Review.

Mark Bloch, Jody Kamminga, Avindra Jayewardene, Michael Bailey, Angela Carberry, Trina Vincent, Dick Quan, Paul Maruff, Bruce Brew, Lucette A Cysique

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

10 authors.

Mark BlochHoldsworth House Medical Practice.
Jody KammingaDepartment of Psychology, Macquarie University.
Avindra JayewardeneHoldsworth House Medical Practice.
Michael BaileyMonash University.
Angela CarberryHoldsworth House Medical Practice.
Trina VincentHoldsworth House Medical Practice.
Dick QuanHoldsworth House Medical Practice.
Paul MaruffPsychology Department Melbourne University, Victoria.
Bruce BrewFaculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales.
Lucette A CysiqueFaculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND) are not routinely assessed due to the lack of an adequate screening strategy. We aimed to develop a clinically relevant screening procedure for symptomatic HAND, validated against a gold standard neuropsychological (NP) test battery.

methodsRepresentative HIV-infected (HIV+) and demographically matched HIV-uninfected (HIV-) participants in an observational study completed a standard evaluation for mood, drug and/or alcohol use, and activities of daily living and a newly designed 20-minute computerized CogState battery that assessed 5 cognitive domains. A subset completed standard NP assessment for 8 cognitive domains. HAND definition on screening and gold standard NP was determined using demographically corrected z scores and the global deficit score (≥ 0.5), applying the Frascati criteria. Participants were blinded to screening results, and the NP examiner was blinded to screening and HIV status.

resultsA total of 254 HIV+ participants were enrolled-mean age, 48.9 ± 10.2 years; median nadir CD4, 270 cells/mL; tertiary educated, 54%; and HIV- controls, 72. HIV+ HAND screening prevalence was 30.7% (HIV-associated dementia, 3.2%; mild neurocognitive disorder, 12.6%; and asymptomatic neurocognitive disorder, 15.0%; HIV- group: 13.9%; P = .004). Of the 75 participants who completed the NP battery, the HAND rate in the HIV+ group was 50.9% vs 43.4% by screening (P > .50). HAND screening vs gold standard NP sensitivity was 76% and specificity was 71%. Clinically relevant HIV-associated dementia and mild neurocognitive disorder sensitivity was 100% and specificity was 98% (positive predictive value 0.92).

conclusionsSymptomatic HAND warranting neurological review was accurately predicted using a CogState-based screening procedure.

Indexed as

Neuropsychological TestsAdultAIDS Dementia ComplexFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrevalenceHANDHIVneurocognitive screening

Identifiers

PMID27325690
PMCPMC4981762

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.