ArticleAIDS (London, England)2021
Predicting occupational outcomes from neuropsychological test performance in older people with HIV.
Article in AIDS (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Frailty and HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder are only modestly associated.AIDS (London, England) · 2024Article
- The Patient Generated Index (PGI) as an early-warning system for predicting brain health challenges: a prospective cohort study for people living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV).Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Translocation of bacterial LPS is associated with self-reported cognitive abilities in men living with HIV receiving antiretroviral therapy.AIDS research and therapy · 2023Article
- Using HIV neuropsychological classification methods to predict employment status.AIDS (London, England) · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe ability to work is amongst the top concerns of people living with well treated HIV. Cognitive impairment has been reported in many otherwise asymptomatic persons living with HIV and even mild impairment is associated with higher rates of occupational difficulties. There are several classification algorithms for HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder (HAND) as well as overall scoring methods available to summarize neuropsychological performance. We asked which method best explained work status and productivity.
designParticipants (N = 263) drawn from a longitudinal Canadian cohort underwent neuropsychological testing.
methods: Several classification algorithms were applied to establish a HAND diagnosis and two summary measures (NPZ and Global Deficit Score) were computed. Self-reported work status and productivity was assessed at each study visit (four visits, 9 months apart). The association of work status with each diagnostic classification and summary measure was estimated using logistic regression. For those working, the value on the productivity scale was regressed within individuals over time, and the slopes were regressed on each neuropsychological outcome.
resultsThe application of different classification algorithms to the neuropsychological data resulted in rates of impairment that ranged from 28.5 to 78.7%. Being classified as impaired by any method was associated with a higher rate of unemployment. None of the diagnostic classifications or summary methods predicted productivity, at time of testing or over the following 36 months.
conclusionNeuropsychological diagnostic classifications and summary scores identified participants who were more likely to be unemployed, but none explained productivity. New methods of assessing cognition are required to inform optimal workforce engagement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33927088What 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.