Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28868068›Full record

ArticleDementia and geriatric cognitive disorders extra

Assessing Capacity in the Elderly: Comparing the MoCA with a Novel Computerized Battery of Executive Function.

Megan Brenkel, Kenneth Shulman, Elias Hazan, Nathan Herrmann, Adrian M Owen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders extra. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Cognitive determinants of decisional capacity in neurodegenerative disorders.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

5 authors.

Megan BrenkelDepartment of Psychiatry, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Kenneth ShulmanDepartment of Psychiatry, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Elias HazanDepartment of Psychiatry, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Nathan HerrmannDepartment of Psychiatry, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Adrian M OwenDepartment of Psychiatry, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsClinicians are increasingly being asked to provide their opinion on the decision-making capacity of older adults, while validated and widely available tools are lacking. We sought to identify an online cognitive screening tool for assessing mental capacity through the measurement of executive function.

methodsA mixed elderly sample of 45 individuals, aged 65 years and older, were screened with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the modified Cambridge Brain Sciences Battery.

resultsTwo computerized tests from the Cambridge Brain Sciences Battery were shown to provide information over and above that obtained with a standard cognitive screening tool, correctly sorting the majority of individuals with borderline MoCA scores.

conclusionsThe brief computerized battery should be used in conjunction with standard tests such as the MoCA in order to differentiate cognitively intact from cognitively impaired older adults.

Indexed as

Cambridge Brain Sciences BatteryCapacity assessmentExecutive functionMontreal Cognitive Assessment

Identifiers

PMID28868068
PMCPMC5567119

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.