ArticlePloS one2020
The utility of simple questions to evaluate cognitive impairment.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Suffering Pictogram for Brazilian cancer patients.Palliative & supportive care · 2026Article
- The association between mobility and a cognitive measure of attention and processing speed in middle-aged adults: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Can the clinical sign "head-turning sign" and simple questions in "Neucop-Q" predict amyloid β pathology?Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2024Article
- Distinct brain volume changes associated with the head-turning sign and Neucop-Q response patterns in Alzheimer's disease.Journal 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAs the population of patients with cognitive decline grows, physicians and caregivers need brief screening tools. Comprehensive neurocognitive batteries require special training and time for evaluation. We focused on accessibility and compared the diagnostic power of several easy questions.
design"Attended With" (AW) and "Head-Turning Sign" (HTS) factors and participants' replies to following questions were recorded: "Do you feel that you have more difficulties in your daily life than you used to?", [no consciousness (C-) or consciousness+ (C+)], "Could you tell me about your daily pleasures or pastimes?" [no pleasure (P-) or pleasure + (P+)], "What are notable current/recent news/topics?" [no news (N-) or news+ (N+)].
settingThis took place in our Memory Clinic between May 2016 and July 2019.
participantsWe enrolled 162 consecutive cases (44 cognitive normal (CN), 55 amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI), and 48 Alzheimer's disease (AD)). MEASUREMENTS: The sensitivity and specificity of each battery were calculated, and on account of those numbers, the population attributable risk percent % (PAR%) of (AW and HTS+), (C- and P-), (C- and N-), (P- and N-) as analysis of combination of questions, respectively, were calculated.
resultsAW had high sensitivity, 87.4, 95.8% (CN vs aMCI + AD, CN + aMCI vs AD) but the sensitivity of HTS was only 46.4, 57.7%, and HTS showed high specificity, 100.0, 71.8%. C- had high sensitivity, 80.6, 87.5%, whereas P- and N- had high specificity, both 83.9% in CN vs aMCI + AD, 88.1% and 75.9% in CN + aMCI vs AD, respectively. In combination analysis, the PAR% of (C- and N-) were as high as (AW and HTS+).
conclusionsThe combination of (C- and N-) is as powerful as (AW and HTS+) in screening AD. Our findings provide novel insights for screening utility of brief questions "Consciousness of Impairment" and "Recent News."
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.