Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32096857›Full record

SynthesisJAMA2020

Screening for Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Carrie D Patnode, Leslie A Perdue, Rebecca C Rossom, Megan C Rushkin, Nadia Redmond, Rachel G Thomas, Jennifer S Lin

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 148 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
148citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
26.7field-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.

NCT07150364 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Comparison of Square Stepping Exercise and Wobble Board Exercise on Cognition, Balance and Fall Risk in Elderly Population

TypeinterventionalSponsorRiphah International UniversityRan2024 to 2026Enrolled38ConditionsElderly PopulationArmsSquare Stepping Exercise, Wobble Board Exercise
NCT07547319 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Clinical and Neurophysiological Effects of Accelerated rTMS on Cognitive Function: A Prospective Pilot Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorSan Francisco Neurology and Sleep CenterRan2026 to 2027Enrolled80ConditionsCognitive Decline, Cognitive ImpairmentArmsTMS
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

148 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 295 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Hearing aids for mild to moderate hearing loss in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Retinal Vascularity Index in Mild Cognitive Impairment.Translational vision science & technology · 2026
    Article
  18. Impact of national cognitive screening on dementia care and hospitalization in South Korea.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026
    Article
  19. Effects of cerebral infarction on cognitive and speech performance.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026
    Article
  20. Article

88 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Carrie D PatnodeKaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon.
Leslie A PerdueKaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon.
Rebecca C RossomHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Megan C RushkinKaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon.
Nadia RedmondKaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon.
Rachel G ThomasKaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon.
Jennifer S LinKaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon.
Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research · USHealthPartners · US

Funding

AHRQ HHS HHSA290201500007I
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Early identification of cognitive impairment may improve patient and caregiver health outcomes. Objective: To systematically review the test accuracy of cognitive screening instruments and benefits and harms of interventions to treat cognitive impairment in older adults (≥65 years) to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through January 2019, with literature surveillance through November 22, 2019. Study Selection: Fair- to good-quality English-language studies of cognitive impairment screening instruments, and pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments aimed at persons with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), mild to moderate dementia, or their caregivers. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Independent critical appraisal and data abstraction; random-effects meta-analyses and qualitative synthesis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sensitivity, specificity; patient, caregiver, and clinician decision-making; patient function, quality of life, and neuropsychiatric symptoms; caregiver burden and well-being. Results: The review included 287 studies with more than 280 000 older adults. One randomized clinical trial (RCT) (n = 4005) examined the direct effect of screening for cognitive impairment on patient outcomes, including potential harms, finding no significant differences in health-related quality of life at 12 months (effect size, 0.009 [95% CI, -0.063 to 0.080]). Fifty-nine studies (n = 38 531) addressed the accuracy of 49 screening instruments to detect cognitive impairment. The Mini-Mental State Examination was the most-studied instrument, with a pooled sensitivity of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.85 to 0.92) and specificity of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.85 to 0.93) to detect dementia using a cutoff of 23 or less or 24 or less (15 studies, n = 12 796). Two hundred twenty-four RCTs and 3 observational studies including more than 240 000 patients or caregivers addressed the treatment of MCI or mild to moderate dementia. None of the treatment trials were linked with a screening program; in all cases, participants were persons with known cognitive impairment. Medications approved to treat Alzheimer disease (donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, and memantine) improved scores on the ADAS-Cog 11 by 1 to 2.5 points over 3 months to 3 years. Psychoeducation interventions for caregivers resulted in a small benefit for caregiver burden (standardized mean difference, -0.24 [95% CI, -0.36 to -0.13) over 3 to 12 months. Intervention benefits were small and of uncertain clinical importance. Conclusions and Relevance: Screening instruments can adequately detect cognitive impairment. There is no empirical evidence, however, that screening for cognitive impairment improves patient or caregiver outcomes or causes harm. It remains unclear whether interventions for patients or caregivers provide clinically important benefits for older adults with earlier detected cognitive impairment or their caregivers.

Indexed as

Mass ScreeningAgedCaregiversCognitive DysfunctionDementiaEarly DiagnosisHumansIndependent LivingNeuropsychological TestsPractice Guidelines as TopicSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID32096857
PMCPMC13174748
OpenAlexW3008391208

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.