ArticleFrontiers in psychology2020
Screening for Cognitive Frailty Using Short Cognitive Screening Instruments: Comparison of the Chinese Versions of the MoCA and Q
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2020. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cognitive frailty research (2001-2024): a scientometric analysis of its evolution, intellectual structure, and future frontiers.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms and Fall Risk: An Important Problem in Older Women with Cognitive Frailty.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- The Persian Version of the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment Screen (QInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- The effects of combined cognitive training on prospective memory in older adults with mild cognitive impairment.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Screening for Cognitive Impairment After Stroke: Validation of the Chinese Version of the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment Screen.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
- The Importance of Taking a Patient-Centered, Community-Based Approach to Preventing and Managing Frailty: A Public Health Perspective.Frontiers in public health · 2020Review
- A comparison of electronic and paper versions of the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (QJournal of Alzheimer's disease reportsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCognitive frailty describes cognitive impairment associated with physical decline. Few studies have explored whether short cognitive screens identify frailty. We examined the diagnostic accuracy of the Chinese versions of the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Q
methodsNinety-five participants with cognitive symptoms [47 with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), 34 with subjective cognitive disorder, and 14 with dementia] were included from two outpatient rehabilitation clinics. Energy (work intensity) and physical activity levels were recorded. Cognitive frailty was diagnosed by an interdisciplinary team using the IANA/IAGG consensus criteria, stratified on the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). Instruments were administered sequentially and randomly by trained assessors, blind to the diagnosis.
resultsThe mean age of the sample was 62.6 ± 10.2 years; median CFS score was 4 ± 1 and 36 (38%) were cognitively frail. The Q
conclusionEstablished short cognitive screens may be useful in identifying cognitive frailty in Chinese adults with cognitive complaints but not in separating MCI from cognitive frailty. The Q
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.