Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30819244›Full record

SynthesisAlzheimer's research & therapy2019

Brief cognitive screening instruments for early detection of Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review.

Ellen Elisa De Roeck, Peter Paul De Deyn, Eva Dierckx, Sebastiaan Engelborghs

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 105 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
105citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
16.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

105 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 210 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

45 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ellen Elisa De RoeckDepartment of Clinical and Lifespan Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Peter Paul De DeynLaboratory of Neurochemistry and Behavior, Institute Born-Bunge, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Eva DierckxDepartment of Clinical and Lifespan Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Sebastiaan EngelborghsLaboratory of Neurochemistry and Behavior, Institute Born-Bunge, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium. sebastiaan.engelborghs@uantwerpen.be.
University of Antwerp · BEVrije Universiteit Brussel · BE

Funding

Flemish government Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology IWT-140027-SBO
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe objective of this systematic review was (1) to give an overview of the available short screening instruments for the early detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and (2) to review the psychometric properties of these instruments.

methodsFirst, a systematic search of titles and abstracts of PubMed and Web of Science was conducted between February and July 2015 and updated in April 2016 and May 2018. Only papers written in English or Dutch were considered. All full-text papers about cognitive screening instruments for the early detection of AD were included, resulting in the identification of 38 pencil and paper tests and 12 computer tests. In a second step, the psychometric quality of these instruments was evaluated. Therefore, the same databases were searched again to identify papers that described the psychometric properties of the instruments meanwhile applying diagnostic criteria for the diagnostic groups included.

resultsOut of 1454 papers, 96 clearly discussed the psychometric properties of the instruments. Eighty-nine papers discussed pencil and paper tests of which 80 were validated in a memory clinic setting. Based on the number of studies (31 articles) and the sensitivity (84%) and specificity (74%) values, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) seems to be a promising (pencil and paper) screening test for memory clinic testing as well as for population screening. Regarding computer tests, validation studies were only available for 7 out of 12 tests.

conclusionsA large number of screening tests for AD are available. However, most tests are only validated in a memory clinic setting and description of the psychometric properties of the instruments is limited. Especially, computer tests require further research. The MoCA is a promising instrument, but the specificity to detect early AD is rather low.

Indexed as

Brief Psychiatric Rating ScaleMental Status and Dementia TestsAlzheimer DiseaseCognitionCognitive DysfunctionEarly DiagnosisHumansAlzheimer’s diseaseCognitive screeningComputer testsMCIMild cognitive impairmentMMSEMoCAPencil and paper tests

Identifiers

PMID30819244
PMCPMC6396539
OpenAlexW2922917123

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.