ArticleBrain and behavior2020
Clock-drawing test: Normative data of three quantitative scoring methods for Chinese-speaking adults in Shijiazhuang City and clinical utility in patients with acute ischemic stroke.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic accuracy of drawing tests and their combinations for post-stroke cognitive impairment in patients with lower education.BMC neurology · 2026Article
- Effect of hearing ability on inflammation and glymphatic function affecting cognition in older adults.GeroScience · 2026Observational
- Chinese version of the auditory verbal learning test: normative study and clinical applications in Chinese-speaking population in Shijiazhuang city.Acta neurologica Belgica · 2023Article
- Cognitive Assessment Tools Recommended in Geriatric Oncology Guidelines: A Rapid Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Review
- Automatic, Qualitative Scoring of the Clock Drawing Test (CDT) Based on U-Net, CNN and Mobile Sensor Data.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Clock-drawing test: Normative data of three quantitative scoring methods for Chinese-speaking adults in Shijiazhuang City and clinical utility in patients with acute ischemic stroke.Brain and behavior · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe clock-drawing test (CDT) is a widely used screening tool for detecting cognitive decline. However, normative data for Chinese individuals are scarce. Our study aimed to provide standardized values for the three quantitative CDT scoring methods that were tailored for Chinese-speaking adults in Shijiazhuang City and explore the discriminant validity of the CDT scores in patients with acute ischemic stroke.
methodsWe conducted the CDT among 418 healthy individuals aged between 35 and 84 years. The CDT was administered and scored by five raters using the method derived from the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Rouleau's, and Babins' scoring systems. The influence of age, education, and sex on the performance in the CDT was analyzed. Furthermore, 336 patients with acute ischemic stroke were enrolled to explore the discriminant validity of CDT scores.
resultsIn all three scoring systems, CDT scores were significantly correlated with age and years of education but not with sex. Normative data stratified for age and years of education were established. Interrater and intersystem reliability were high in our study. CDT total scores and subscores showed significant differences between stroke patients and healthy individuals.
conclusionsOur study provides CDT normative data using three quantitative scoring methods for Chinese-speaking adults in Shijiazhuang City. Age and education level were the key factors that affected the CDT scores. CDT total scores and subscores provided good discriminant validity for patients with acute ischemic stroke.
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.