ArticleDer Nervenarzt2021
[Clinical practicability of the cognitive screening battery BICAMS in patients with multiple sclerosis: results of the feasibility study in Germany].
Article in Der Nervenarzt, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with multiple sclerosis (MS) suffer from cognitive impairment in 40-70% of the cases. There is evidence that the cognitive status is predictive for working ability and early retirement. Regular assessment of cognitive functionality is therefore urgently needed. PURPOSE: The German validation of the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis (BICAMS) battery was evaluated in a multicentric way with respect to its feasibility in private neurological centers across Germany.
methodsPhysician assistants were trained with respect to application and scoring of BICAMS. All scored test materials were evaluated by independent neuropsychological experts.
resultsA total of 1606 BICAMS datasets were collected from 65 neurological centers. Of these 1573 datasets were analyzed of which 49.7% were correctly applied and scored while mistakes in application, scoring and transformation were found in 50.3%. Interrater reliability for each subtest was found to be ICC [Formula: see text] 0.953 when datasets containing mistakes were excluded. DISCUSSION: In general, BICAMS is highly recommended to be applied in standard clinical care; however, it should be emphasized that although the interrater reliability in the final sample was high, serious mistakes were found in 50.3% of cases. From these findings we conclude that nonpsychological staff have to be even more intensively trained and supervised by experts in the application and scoring of BICAMS.
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.