ArticleThe journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease2018
Detection of Rater Errors on Cognitive Instruments in a Clinical Trial Setting.
Article in The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acceptable standards for clinic-based digital cognitive assessments: Recommendations from the Global CEO Initiative on Alzheimer's Disease.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Article
- AI agents in Alzheimer's disease management: challenges and future directions.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2025Article
- Validity, reliability, and psychometric properties of a computerized, cognitive assessment test (CognivueWorld journal of psychiatry · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study examines errors committed by raters in a clinical trial of a memory enhancement compound.
backgroundFindings of clinical trials are directly dependent on the quality of the data obtained but there is little literature on rates or nature of rater errors on cognitive instruments in a multi-site setting.
designDouble-blind placebo-controlled study.
setting21 clinical sites in North America.
participantsTwo hundred seventy-five participants. MEASUREMENTS: MMSE, WMS-R Logical Memory I and II, WMS-R Verbal Paired Associates I, WASi Vocabulary, WASi Matrix Reasoning, GDS and MAC-Q.
resultsThe WMS-R Logical Memory I and II and WASi Vocabulary tests were found to have the greatest number of scoring errors. Few substantive errors were detected on source document review of the MMSE, GDS, MAC-Q and WMS-R Verbal Paired Associates I. Some additional administration and scoring issues were identified during feedback sessions with the raters.
conclusionsCognitive measures used in clinical trials are prone to errors which can be detected with proper monitoring. Some instruments are particularly prone to inter-rater variably and should therefore be targets for focused training and ongoing monitoring. Areas in need of further investigation to help inform and optimize quality of clinical trial data are discussed.
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.