ArticleThe Clinical neuropsychologist2017
Convergent and criterion validity of the CogState computerized brief battery cognitive assessment in women with and without breast cancer.
Article in The Clinical neuropsychologist, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Interventions promoting cognitive function in patients experiencing cancer related cognitive impairment: A systematic review.Psycho-oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Cognitive impairments associated with chemotherapy in women with breast cancer: a meta-analysis and meta-regression.Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica · 2023Pooled it
- Baseline Neurocognitive Functioning Among Children Treated for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL): Dana Farber Cancer Institute ALL Consortium Study 16-001.Pediatric blood & cancer · 2025Trial
- Trial
- The Real-World Usability, Feasibility, and Performance Distributions of Deploying a Digital Toolbox of Computerized Assessments to Remotely Evaluate Brain Health: Development and Usability Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Novel computerized neurocognitive test battery is sensitive to cancer-related cognitive deficits in survivors.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2024Article
- Cognitive assessment in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS): a cognitive substudy of the multi-site clinical assessment of ME/CFS (MCAM).Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Cancer-related cognitive impairment in racial and ethnic minority groups: a scoping review.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Age of first exposure to soccer heading: Associations with cognitive, clinical, and imaging outcomes in the Einstein Soccer Study.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- A preliminary, prospective study of peripheral neuropathy and cognitive function in patients with breast cancer during taxane therapy.PloS one · 2022Article
- Assessment of cerebral oxygenation response to hemodialysis using near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS): Challenges and solutions.Journal of innovative optical health sciences · 2021Article
- Article
- Physical fitness mediates the association between age and cognition in healthy adults.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2021Article
- Correlates of cognitive impairment in adult cancer survivors who have received chemotherapy and report cognitive problems.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Article
- Cognitive Dysfunction in Insomnia Phenotypes: Further Evidence for Different Disorders.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
- The many menopauses: searching the cognitive research literature for menopause types.Menopause (New York, N.Y.) · 2019Review
- Cognitive Impairment Associated with Cancer: A Brief Review.Innovations in clinical neuroscience · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveComputerized tests have increasingly garnered interest for assessing cognitive functioning due to their potential logistical and financial advantages over traditional 'pencil and-paper' neuropsychological tests. However, psychometric information is necessary to guide decisions about their clinical and research utility with varied populations. We explored the convergent construct validity and criterion validity of the CogState computerized tests in breast cancer survivors, a group known to present with mostly mild, subtle cognitive dysfunction.
methodFifty-three post-menopausal women (26 breast cancer survivors, 27 healthy controls) completed the CogState Brief Battery tests with passed performance checks, conceptually matched traditional neuropsychological tests, and a self-report measure of daily functioning, the Functional Activities Questionnaire.
resultsSignificant positive correlations were found between the CogState Brief Battery tests and traditional neuropsychological tests, although the traditional tests specifically hypothesized to correlate with CogState tests did not reach statistical significance. Analysis of Covariance results showed preliminary support for criterion validity, as the patient and control groups differed on the traditional test of working memory (Digits Backwards, p = .01), with a trend towards significance for the CogState test of working memory (One Back, p = .02), controlled for age, race, and mood.
conclusionsThe results provide preliminary support for further research to determine if the CogState tests are viable as screening tools to detect subtle cognitive differences between breast cancer survivors and healthy women. Our study was limited by the low base rate of cognitive impairment and small sample size. We recommend further research employing sufficiently powered sample sizes and a longitudinal, repeated measures study design.
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.