Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27911914›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2016

Performance of the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS) in Assessing Specific Cognitive Function in Patients Undergoing Peritoneal Dialysis.

Yi Li, Xue Tian, Zu-Ying Xiong, Jin-Lan Liao, Li Hao, Gui-Ling Liu, Ye-Ping Ren, Qin Wang, Li-Ping Duan, Zhao-Xia Zheng and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical TrialComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Content Validity Assessment of the Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire in CKD Using Qualitative Methods.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

12 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Yi LiRenal Division, Department of Medicine, Peking University First Hospital; Beijing, China.
Xue TianRenal Division, Department of Medicine, Peking University First Hospital; Beijing, China.
Zu-Ying XiongRenal Division, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Jin-Lan LiaoRenal Division, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Li HaoRenal Division, the Second Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Anhui, China.
Gui-Ling LiuRenal Division, the Second Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Anhui, China.
Ye-Ping RenRenal Division, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Heilongjiang, China.
Qin WangRenal Division, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Heilongjiang, China.
Li-Ping DuanRenal Division, Handan Central Hospital, Hebei, China.
Zhao-Xia ZhengRenal Division, Handan Central Hospital, Hebei, China.
Wen-Xiang QuanPeking University Sixth Hospital; Peking University Institute of Mental Health; Key Laboratory of Mental Health, Ministry of Health, Beijing, China.
Jie DongRenal Division, Department of Medicine, Peking University First Hospital; Beijing, China.
Peking University · CNPeking University Shenzhen Hospital · CNSecond Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University · CNAnhui Medical University · CNPeking University First Hospital · CNSecond Hospital of Anhui Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWhile Cognitive impairment (CI) has been identified as an independent risk factors for mortality in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD), it is inadequately assessed. We evaluated the applicability of the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS) in assessing specific cognitive function and compared it to a detailed neuropsychological test battery as the reference standard.

methodsIn this multicentric cross-sectional study, we enrolled 445 clinically stable patients from five PD units, who were undergoing PD for at least 3 months. The 3MS was evaluated for general cognitive function. A detailed neuropsychological battery including domains of immediate memory, delayed memory, executive function, language, and visuospatial ability were evaluated as reference standards. Sensitivity and specificity of the 3MS was determined by using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.

resultsThe CI prevalence evaluated by 3MS was 23.6%. PD patients with CI performed worse in all cognitive domains. The 3MS correlated well with specific cognitive domains. However, 18.5%, 57.4%, 12.6%, 8.8%, and 41.2% of patients whom were idendified as normal by 3MS still showed executive dysfunction, immediate memory impairment, delayed memory impairment, and language-ability and visuospatial-ability impairment, respectively. The 3MS identified patients having specific cognitive dysfunction with varied extent of diagnostic value, with 0.50, 0.42, 0.35, 0.34, and 0.26 of Youden index in executive function, delayed memory, language ability, immediate memory, and visuospatial ability, respectively.

conclusionsThe 3MS is not a comprehensive instrument for major cognitive domains in PD patients. It could, however, be used for executive dysfunction and delayed memory impairment screening.

Indexed as

Cognitive DysfunctionPeritoneal DialysisAdultAgedAgnosiaCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansIntelligence TestsLanguage DisordersMaleMemory DisordersMiddle AgedPrevalenceRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID27911914
PMCPMC5135044
OpenAlexW2558325333

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.