ArticleNeuro-oncology practice2019
Preliminary exploration of a computerized cognitive battery and comparison with traditional testing in patients with high-grade glioma.
Article in Neuro-oncology practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Executive functions in adults: scoping review of computerized neuropsychological batteries.Dementia & neuropsychologia · 2026Review
- Neuropsychological Evaluation for Oncology.Neurologic clinics · 2024Review
- Letter regarding "Acceptability and feasibility of neurocognitive assessments with adults with primary brain cancer and brain metastasis: A systematic review".Neuro-oncology practice · 2023Article
- Acceptability and feasibility of cognitive assessments with adults with primary brain cancer and brain metastasis: A systematic review.Neuro-oncology practice · 2023Review
- Validity of Digital Assessments in Screening for HIV-Related Cognitive Impairment: a Review.Current HIV/AIDS reports · 2021Review
- Pre-operative Neurocognitive Function Was More Susceptible to Decline in Isocitrate Dehydrogenase Wild-Type Subgroups of Lower-Grade Glioma Patients.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Article
- Monitoring of Neurocognitive Function in the Care of Patients with Brain Tumors.Current treatment options in neurology · 2019Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCognitive function is an important outcome measure in many brain tumor clinical trials, and investigators are interested in employing the most efficient methods of cognitive assessment for this purpose. Computerized testing can be appealing because of the perceived ease of use and electronic data generated. Traditional tests may have the advantage of accumulated validity evidence and comparability across historic trials.
methodsWe evaluated feasibility of a Cogstate battery in 39 patients with high-grade glioma, and compared it with a commonly used paper-and-pencil battery.
resultsBoth batteries were well tolerated and rated equally likeable. Correlations between the batteries were low to low-moderate. More patients showed impairment at baseline and decline across trials on traditional tests.
conclusionsBoth batteries were well tolerated, but the most complicated tasks (from both batteries) could not be completed by all subjects. Preliminary validity evidence for the Cogstate tasks was mixed, but a larger sample is needed.
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.