Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29042889›Full record

ArticlePsychiatry investigation2017

Screening Ability of Subjective Memory Complaints, Informant-Reports for Cognitive Decline, and Their Combination in Memory Clinic Setting.

Seon Jin Yim, Dahyun Yi, Min Soo Byun, Young Min Choe, Hyo Jung Choi, Hyewon Baek, Bo Kyung Sohn, Jee Wook Kim, Eui-Jung Kim, Dong Young Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychiatry investigation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Subjective memory measures: Metamemory questionnaires currently in use.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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.

Seon Jin YimDepartment of Geriatric Psychiatry, National Center for Mental Health, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Dahyun YiDepartment of Psychiatry and Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Min Soo ByunDepartment of Psychiatry, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Young Min ChoeDepartment of Neuropsychiatry, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan University Hospital, Ulsan, Republic of Korea.
Hyo Jung ChoiDepartment of Psychiatry, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Hyewon BaekDepartment of Psychiatry, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Bo Kyung SohnDepartment of Psychiatry, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan, Republic of Korea.
Jee Wook KimDepartment of Neuropsychiatry, Hallym University Dongtan Sacred Heart Hospital, Hwaseong, Republic of Korea.
Eui-Jung KimDepartment of Psychiatry, College of Medicine, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Dong Young LeeDepartment of Psychiatry and Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study aimed to compare the accuracy of subjective memory complaints, informant-reports for cognitive declines, and their combination for screening cognitive disorders in memory clinic setting.

methodsOne-hundred thirtytwo cognitively normal (CN), 136 mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 546 dementia who visited the memory clinic in the Seoul National University Hospital underwent standardized clinical evaluation and comprehensive neuropsychological assessment. The Subjective Memory Complaints Questionnaire (SMCQ) and the Seoul Informant Report Questionnaire for Dementia (SIRQD) were used to assess subjective memory complaints and informant-reports for cognitive declines, respectively.

resultsBoth SMCQ and SIRQD showed significant screening ability for MCI, dementia, and overall cognitive disorder (CDall: MCI plus dementia) (screening accuracy: 60.1-94.6%). The combination of SMCQ and SIRQD (SMCQ+SIRQD) was found to have significantly better screening accuracy compared to SMCQ alone for any cognitive disorders. SMCQ+SIRQD also significantly improved screening accuracy of SIRQD alone for MCI and CDall, but not for dementia.

conclusionOur findings suggest that the combined information of both subjective memory complaints and informant-reports for cognitive declines can improve MCI screening by each individual information, while such combination appears not better than informant-reports in regard of dementia screening.

Indexed as

Cognitive disorderElderlyInformant-reportMemoryScreeningSubjective complaints

Identifiers

PMID29042889
PMCPMC5639132

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.