ReviewCurrent HIV/AIDS reports2021
Validity of Digital Assessments in Screening for HIV-Related Cognitive Impairment: a Review.
Review in Current HIV/AIDS reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tablet-Based Neurocognitive Tests for Ugandan Adolescents Living With HIV: Cross-Sectional Validation Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Selection of cognitive impairment screening tools for longitudinal implementation in an HIV clinical care setting.AIDS care · 2023Review
- Research on digital tool in cognitive assessment: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Adaptation and construct validity evaluation of a tablet-based, short neuropsychological test battery for use with adolescents and young adults living with HIV in Thailand.Neuropsychology · 2022Article
- Providing differentiated service delivery to the ageing population of people living with HIV.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2022Article
- HIV-Associated Neurocognitive Disorder (HAND): Obstacles to Early Neuropsychological Diagnosis.International journal of general medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewWhile traditional neuropsychological tests are the gold standard in screening for HIV-related cognitive impairment, computerized neuropsychological assessment devices (CNADs) offer an alternative to these time- and resource-intensive batteries and may prove to be particularly useful for remote assessments or longitudinal monitoring. This review seeks to describe the benefits, limitations, and validity of CNADs in the evaluation of HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder (HAND). RECENT
findingsWe identified eight CNADs that have undergone validity testing for cognitive impairment in the setting of HIV. Included among these are batteries that have been modeled after the traditional neuropsychological exam, as well as others that implement new technologies, such as simulated reality and daily ecological assessments in their testing. Currently, these digital batteries do not yet have the ability to supplant gold standard neuropsychological tests in screening for HAND. However, many have the potential to become effective clinical screening tools.
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.