ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology2018
Intraindividual variability in neurocognitive performance: No influence due to HIV status or self-reported effort.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the potential of cognitive intra-individual variability in HIV care and research in adults with HIV: a concept analysis.Applied neuropsychology. Adult · 2026Review
- Serotonin, cortisol, and DHEA-S levels in anxious and depressive pregnant women living with HIV.BMC psychology · 2024Article
- Recent Advances in Neuropsychological Test Interpretation for Clinical Practice.Neuropsychology review · 2024Review
- Cognitive Intra-Individual Variability as an Outcome or Moderator of Speed of Processing Training in Aging Adults with HIV-Associated Neurocognitive Disorder: A Secondary Data Analysis of a 2-Year Longitudinal Randomized Clinical Trial.Archives of gerontology and geriatrics plus · 2024Article
- Cognitive Intra-individual Variability in HIV: an Integrative Review.Neuropsychology review · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionHIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND) are estimated to affect approximately 50% of infected individuals at any one time. Dispersion, a type of intraindividual variability in neurocognitive test performance, has been identified as a potential behavioral marker of HAND; however, the specificity of dispersion to HAND and how it is influenced by participant effort when taking neurocognitive tests remain unclear.
methodData were analyzed from 996 (474 HIV-, 522 HIV+) men enrolled in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS). Dispersion was calculated based on the standard deviation of an individual's test scores within a single assessment. Effort was determined using the Visual Analogue Effort Scale. Predictors of dispersion were determined using stepwise linear regression. Dispersion was compared between the HIV serostatus groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), considering demographic and psychosocial variables that differed between the groups.
resultsContrary to our hypothesis, dispersion was not influenced by effort. Instead, poorer neurocognitive ability and race were the sole predictors of dispersion. Dispersion did not differ between the serostatus groups.
conclusionsOur results indicate that dispersion is a valid indicator of neurocognitive dysfunction that is not due to suboptimal effort; however, it is not specific to HIV and is therefore of limited utility as a behavioral marker of HIV-related neurocognitive impairment.
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.