ArticleJournal of neurology2022
Quantifying test-retest reliability of repeated objective attentional measures in Lewy body dementia.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Preference-based measures in people with dementia: a systematic review of psychometric properties.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2026Pooled it
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective cognitive impairment is a feature of Lewy body dementia (LBD), and computerised attentional tasks are commonly used as outcome measures in interventional trials. However, the reliability of these measures, in the absence of interventions, are unknown. This study examined the reliability of these attentional measures at short-term and longer-term follow-up stages. LBD patients (n = 36) completed computerised attentional tasks [simple and choice reaction time, and digit vigilance (SRT, CRT, DV)] at short-term (Day 0-Day 5) and longer-term (4 and 12 weeks) follow-up. Intra-class correlations (ICCs) were calculated to assess test-retest reliability. At short-term, the reciprocal SRT, CRT and DV mean reaction time to correct answers, the reciprocal DV coefficient of variation, and reciprocal power of attention (PoA) all showed excellent levels of reliability (all ICCs > 0.90). The reciprocal PoA showed the highest level of reliability (ICC = 0.978). At longer-term follow-up, only the reciprocal PoA had excellent levels of reliability (ICC = 0.927). Reciprocal SRT, CRT and DV reaction time to correct answers, and the CRT coefficient of variation values, showed good levels of test-retest reliability (ICCs ≥ 0.85). Contrary to expectations, most attentional measures demonstrated high levels of test-retest reliability at both short-term and longer-term follow-up time points. The reciprocal PoA composite measure demonstrated excellent levels of test-retest reliability, both in the short-term and long-term. This indicates that objective attentional tasks are suitable outcome measures in LBD studies and that the composite PoA measure may offer the highest levels of reliability.
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.