ArticleeNeurologicalSci2016
Evaluation of cognitive impairment in elderly population with hypertension from a low-resource setting: Agreement and bias between screening tools.
Article in eNeurologicalSci, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prospective ECUAging observational study: cohort design and preliminary results.BMC geriatrics · 2025Observational
- Screening for cognitive impairment in older adults with hypertension: the HYPER-COG study.Journal of human hypertension · 2023Article
- A review of neurological health disparities in Peru.Frontiers in public health · 2023Review
- The Correlation and Agreement of Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Mini-Mental State Examination and Abbreviated Mental Test in Assessing the Cognitive Status of Elderly People Undergoing Hemodialysis.Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe evaluation of cognitive impairment in adulthood merits attention in societies in transition and especially in people with chronic diseases. Screening tools available for clinical practice and epidemiological studies have been designed in high-income but not in resource-constrained settings. The aim of this study was to assess the agreement and bias of three common tools used for screening of cognitive impairment in people with hypertension: the modified Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and the Leganés Cognitive Test (LCT).
methodsA cross-sectional study enrolling participants with hypertension from a semi-urban area in Peru was performed. The three screening tools for cognitive impairment were applied on three consecutive days. The prevalence of cognitive impairment was calculated for each test. Pearson's correlation coefficients, Bland-Altman plots, and Kappa statistics were used to assess agreement and bias between screening tools.
resultsWe evaluated 139 participants, mean age 76.5 years (SD ± 6.9), 56.1% females. Cognitive impairment was found in 28.1% of individuals using LCT, 63.3% using MMSE, and 100% using MoCA. Correlation coefficients ranged from 0.501 between LCT and MoCA, to 0.698 between MMSE and MoCA. Bland-Altman plots confirmed bias between screening tests. The agreement between MMSE and LCT was 60.4%, between MMSE and MoCA was 63.3%, and between MoCA and LCT was 28.1%.
conclusionsThree of the most commonly used screening tests to evaluate cognitive impairment showed major discrepancies in a resource-constrained setting, signaling towards a sorely need to develop and validate appropriate tools.
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.