Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29356098›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of geriatric psychiatry2018

A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of automated tests for cognitive impairment.

Rabeea'h W Aslam, Vickie Bates, Yenal Dundar, Juliet Hounsome, Marty Richardson, Ashma Krishan, Rumona Dickson, Angela Boland, Joanne Fisher, Louise Robinson and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of geriatric psychiatry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. cCOG Web-Based Cognitive Assessment Tool.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The Hong Kong Grocery Shopping Dialog Task (HK-GSDT): A Quick Screening Test for Neurocognitive Disorders.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Optimizing cCOG, a Web-based tool, to detect dementia with Lewy Bodies.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. cCOG: A web-based cognitive test tool for detecting neurodegenerative disorders.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2020
    Article
  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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Rabeea'h W AslamHealth Services, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0916-9641
Vickie BatesHealth Services, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Yenal DundarMersey Care NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Juliet HounsomeHealth Services, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Marty RichardsonHealth Services, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Ashma KrishanHealth Services, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Rumona DicksonHealth Services, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Angela BolandHealth Services, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Joanne FisherHealth Services, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Louise RobinsonInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Sudip SikdarMersey Care NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
University of Liverpool · GBMersey Care NHS Trust · GBNewcastle University · GB

Funding

Department of Health NIHR-RP-011-043
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this review is to determine whether automated computerised tests accurately identify patients with progressive cognitive impairment and, if so, to investigate their role in monitoring disease progression and/or response to treatment.

methodsSix electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Institute for Scientific Information, PsycINFO, and ProQuest) were searched from January 2005 to August 2015 to identify papers for inclusion. Studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of automated computerised tests for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early dementia against a reference standard were included. Where possible, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and likelihood ratios were calculated. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool was used to assess risk of bias.

resultsSixteen studies assessing 11 diagnostic tools for MCI and early dementia were included. No studies were eligible for inclusion in the review of tools for monitoring progressive disease and response to treatment. The overall quality of the studies was good. However, the wide range of tests assessed and the non-standardised reporting of diagnostic accuracy outcomes meant that statistical analysis was not possible.

conclusionSome tests have shown promising results for identifying MCI and early dementia. However, concerns over small sample sizes, lack of replicability of studies, and lack of evidence available make it difficult to make recommendations on the clinical use of the computerised tests for diagnosing, monitoring progression, and treatment response for MCI and early dementia. Research is required to establish stable cut-off points for automated computerised tests used to diagnose patients with MCI or early dementia.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseCognitive DysfunctionDementiaDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedDiagnostic Tests, RoutineDisease ProgressionHumansPredictive Value of TestsSensitivity and SpecificityageingAlzheimer diseaseautomated testscomputerised testsdementiadiagnosisMCImonitoring

Identifiers

PMID29356098
PMCPMC5887872
OpenAlexW2787183480

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.