ArticleSao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina
Screening for cognitive impairment among individuals aged 60 years or over: scoping review.
Article in Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The application of saccades to assess cognitive impairment among older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2023Pooled it
- Effect of vigorous-intensity physical activity on incident cognitive impairment in high-risk hypertension.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024Article
- Adherence to the Mediterranean diet and waist-to-hip ratio in middle-aged postmenopausal women are the main factors associated with semantic verbal fluency 12 years later.Frontiers in nutrition · 2023Article
- Predictors of everyday functional impairment in older patients with schizophrenia: A cross-sectional study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGrowth in aging of the population has led to increasing numbers of elderly people presenting cognitive impairment and evolution to dementia. There is still no consensus within primary care on the best strategy for screening for cognitive impairment among elderly people. Standardization of a simple but reasonably accurate instrument for a brief cognitive test, in primary care environments, would enable healthcare professionals to identify individuals who require a more in-depth assessment of cognition.
objectivesTo investigate the instruments used by healthcare professionals in studies conducted worldwide and ascertain the most suitable instruments for screening for cognitive impairment among individuals aged 60 years or over, in the Brazilian population. DESIGN AND
settingScoping review developed at Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, Brazil.
methodA systematic search of the literature was conducted for primary studies using instruments to screen for cognitive impairment among individuals aged 60 years or over, in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central and LILACS databases.
resultsA total of 983 articles were identified by two independent reviewers, from which 49 were selected for full-text reading, based on the criteria defined for this review. From this, 16 articles adhering to the theme of screening for cognitive impairment among the elderly were selected for in-depth analysis.
conclusionThe Mini-Mental State Examination was the instrument most cited in these studies. The Pfeffer Functional Activities Questionnaire and the Verbal Fluency Test (semantic category) present characteristics favoring further studies, for testing as screening instruments for cognitive impairment among elderly people in Brazil.
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.