ArticleJournal of the neurological sciences2021
Evaluation of a screening tool for the identification of neurological disorders in rural Uganda.
Article in Journal of the neurological sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Task-shifting to optimize outpatient neurological care in Zambia.Human resources for health · 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
13 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNeurological disorders are common in sub-Saharan African, but accurate neuroepidemiologic data are lacking from the region. We assessed a neuroepidemiological screening tool in a rural Ugandan cohort with high HIV prevalence.
methodsParticipants were recruited from the Rakai Neurology Study in rural Rakai District, Uganda. A nurse administered the tool and a sociodemographic survey. 100 participants returned for validation examinations by a neurologist (validation cohort). The diagnostic utility and validity of the instrument were calculated and characteristics of those with and without neurological disorders compared.
resultsThe tool was administered to 392 participants, 48% female, 33% people with HIV, average age 35.1 ± 8.5 years. 33% of the study cohort screened positive for neurologic disorders. These participants were older [mean (SD): 38.3 (9.7) vs. 33.5 (7.1) years, p < 0.001], had a lower Karnofsky score [89.8 (8.4) vs. 93.9 (7.5), p < 0.001] and had a lower body mass index [21.8 (3.3) vs. 22.8 (3.7), p = 0.007] than those who screened negative. Amongst the validation cohort, 54% had a neurological abnormality of which 46% were symptomatic. The tool was 57% sensitive and 74% specific for detecting any neurological abnormality and 80% sensitive and 69% specific for symptomatic abnormalities.
conclusionsWe found a lower sensitivity and similar specificity for the screening tool compared with two previous studies. The lower validity in this study was likely due in part to the high percentage of asymptomatic neurological abnormalities detected. This screening tool will require further refinement and cultural contextualization before it can be widely implemented across new populations.
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.