ReviewBrain sciences2020
Assessment of Executive Function in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury with the Wisconsin Card-Sorting Test.
Review in Brain sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine-Learning Approach to Identify Tissue Inhibitors of Metalloproteinases (TIMP) and Clinical Variables Predicting Executive Phenotypes in HIV-infected Adults.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- A Diffusion Tensor Imaging Study: Relation of Wisconsin Card Sorting Covariates to White Matter Abnormalities in Traumatic Brain Injury.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Multidimensional Comparison of Methylphenidate and Atomoxetine in the Treatment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Children, a 12-Week, Open-Label, Head-to-Head Clinical Trial.Psychiatry investigation · 2025Article
- Performance of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test in Oncopediatric Patients in an Oncology Unit in Cali, Colombia: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Advances in the Regulation of Neural Function by Infrared Light.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Traumatic brain injuries: a neuropsychological review.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2024Review
- Neuropsychological Assessment in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury: A Comprehensive Review with Clinical Recommendations.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- The Relationship between Cognitive Status and Retained Activity Participation among Community-Dwelling Older Adults.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2022Article
- Metacognition and Frontal Lobe Functioning.Clinical neuropsychiatry · 2021Article
- Functional Brain Network Analysis of Knowledge Transfer While Engineering Problem-Solving.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review aimed at providing a brief and comprehensive summary of recent research regarding the use of the Wisconsin Card-Sorting Test (WCST) to assess executive function in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). A bibliographical search, performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and PsycInfo, targeted publications from 2010 to 2020, in English or Spanish. Information regarding the studies' designs, sample features and use of the WCST scores was recorded. An initial search eliciting 387 citations was reduced to 47 relevant papers. The highest proportion of publications came from the United States of America (34.0%) and included adult patients (95.7%). Observational designs were the most frequent (85.1%), the highest proportion being cross-sectional or case series studies. The average time after the occurrence of the TBI ranged from 4 to 62 years in single case studies, and from 6 weeks up to 23.5 years in the studies with more than one patient. Four studies compared groups of patients with TBI according to the severity (mild, moderate and/or severe), and in two cases, the studies compared TBI patients with healthy controls. Randomized control trials were seven in total. The noncomputerized WCST version including 128 cards was the most frequently used (78.7%). Characterization of the clinical profile of participants was the most frequent purpose (34.0%). The WCST is a common measure of executive function in patients with TBI. Although shorter and/or computerized versions are available, the original WCST with 128 cards is still used most often. The WCST is a useful tool for research and clinical purposes, yet a common practice is to report only one or a few of the possible scores, which prevents further valid comparisons across studies. Results might be useful to professionals in the clinical and research fields to guide them in assessment planning and proper interpretation of the WCST scores.
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.