Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31489940›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2019

Thirty-Five Years of Computerized Cognitive Assessment of Aging-Where Are We Now?

Avital Sternin, Alistair Burns, Adrian M Owen

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

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Digital Neuropsychology beyond Computerized Cognitive Assessment: Applications of Novel Digital Technologies.Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists · 2024
    Review
  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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Avital SterninBrain and Mind Institute, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada. avital.sternin@uwo.ca.
Alistair BurnsDivision of Neuroscience & Experimental Psychology, Manchester Institute for Collaborative Research on Ageing, School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9837-0645
Adrian M OwenBrain and Mind Institute, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada.
Western University · CAUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past 35 years, the proliferation of technology and the advent of the internet have resulted in many reliable and easy to administer batteries for assessing cognitive function. These approaches have great potential for affecting how the health care system monitors and screens for cognitive changes in the aging population. Here, we review these new technologies with a specific emphasis on what they offer over and above traditional 'paper-and-pencil' approaches to assessing cognitive function. Key advantages include fully automated administration and scoring, the interpretation of individual scores within the context of thousands of normative data points, the inclusion of 'meaningful change' and 'validity' indices based on these large norms, more efficient testing, increased sensitivity, and the possibility of characterising cognition in samples drawn from the general population that may contain hundreds of thousands of test scores. The relationship between these new computerized platforms and existing (and commonly used) paper-and-pencil tests is explored, with a particular emphasis on why computerized tests are particularly advantageous for assessing the cognitive changes associated with aging.

Indexed as

agingcomputerized cognitive assessmentdementiaexecutive functionmemory

Identifiers

PMID31489940
PMCPMC6787729
OpenAlexW2971452237

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.