Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33877569›Full record

ArticleNeuropsychology review2022

A Scoping Review of Communicating Neuropsychological Test Results to Patients and Family Members.

Angélique Aa Gruters, Inez Hgb Ramakers, Frans Rj Verhey, Roy Pc Kessels, Marjolein E de Vugt

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Neuropsychology review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Return of research results across the Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers network.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Angélique Aa GrutersDepartment of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Alzheimer Center Limburg, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4924-3305
Inez Hgb RamakersDepartment of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Alzheimer Center Limburg, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands. i.ramakers@maastrichtuniversity.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-4747-2879
Frans Rj VerheyDepartment of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Alzheimer Center Limburg, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8307-8406
Roy Pc KesselsDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9500-9793
Marjolein E de VugtDepartment of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Alzheimer Center Limburg, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2113-4134

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Feedback of neuropsychological test results to patients and family members include psychoeducation and implications for daily life. This scoping review aimed to provide an overview of the literature on neuropsychological feedback and to offer clinical recommendations. In accordance with formal scoping review methodology, PubMed, PsycInfo, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Embase databases were searched. Studies were included if they reported on neuropsychological feedback, if full papers were available, and if they included human participants. All languages were included, and no limit was placed on the year of publication. Of the 2,173 records screened, 34 publications met the inclusion criteria. Five additional publications were included after cross-referencing. An update of the search led to the inclusion of two additional papers. Of these 41 publications, 26 were research papers. Neuropsychological feedback is provided for a wide spectrum of diagnoses and usually given in-person and has been related to optimal a positive effect on patient outcomes (e.g. increase the quality of life). Most papers reported on satisfaction and found that satisfaction with an NPA increased when useful feedback was provided. However, information retention was found to be low, but communication aids, such as written information, were found to be helpful in improving retention. The current review demonstrated the benefits of neuropsychological feedback and that this should be part of standard clinical procedures when conducting a neuropsychological assessment. Further research on the benefits of neuropsychological feedback and how to improve information provision would enrich the neuropsychological literature.

Indexed as

FamilyQuality of LifeHumansNeuropsychological TestsCommunicationNeuropsychological assessmentNeuropsychological feedbackNeuropsychologyPatient outcome

Identifiers

PMID33877569
PMCPMC9090678

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.