Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35720646›Full record

ArticleDementia & neuropsychologia

Retest effects in a diverse sample: sociodemographic predictors and possible correction approaches.

Laiss Bertola, Isabela Judith Martins Benseñor, Andre Russowsky Brunoni, Paulo Caramelli, Sandhi Maria Barreto, Arlinda Barbosa Moreno, Rosane Harter Griep, Maria Carmen Viana, Paulo Andrade Lotufo, Claudia Kimie Suemoto

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Dementia & neuropsychologia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

10 authors.

Laiss BertolaUniversidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Medicina, São Paulo SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-5771-2576
Isabela Judith Martins BenseñorUniversidade de São Paulo, Hospital Universitário, Centro de Pesquisa Epidemiológica e Clínica, São Paulo SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-6723-5678
Andre Russowsky BrunoniUniversidade de São Paulo, Hospital Universitário, Centro de Pesquisa Epidemiológica e Clínica, São Paulo SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-6310-3571
Paulo CaramelliUniversidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Faculdade de Medicina, Departamento de Clínica Médica, Belo Horizonte MG, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-4786-6990
Sandhi Maria BarretoUniversidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Faculdade de Medicina, Hospital das Clínicas, Belo Horizonte MG, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-7383-7811
Arlinda Barbosa MorenoFundação Oswaldo Cruz, Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública Sérgio Arouca, Departamento de Epidemiologia e Métodos Quantitativos em Saúde, Rio de Janeiro RJ, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-8282-6521
Rosane Harter GriepFundação Oswaldo Cruz, Istituto Oswaldo Cruz, Laboratório de Educação em Saúde e Meio Ambiente, Rio de Janeiro RJ, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-6250-2036
Maria Carmen VianaUniversidade Federal do Espírito Santo, Departamento de Medicina Social, Vitória ES, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-0464-4845
Paulo Andrade LotufoUniversidade de São Paulo, Hospital Universitário, Centro de Pesquisa Epidemiológica e Clínica, São Paulo SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-4856-8450
Claudia Kimie SuemotoUniversidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Medicina, Divisão de Geriatria, São Paulo SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-5942-4778

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Repeated cognitive assessment in longitudinal studies favors the occurrence of retest effects, usually increasing the scores obtained at the follow-up assessments when compared to baseline. Therefore, retest effects can compromise the evaluation of cognitive decline in older adults. Objectives: We aimed to verify the occurrence of the retest effect and the impact of sociodemographic characteristics on the follow-up scores in a sample of 5,592 participants with a diverse sociodemographic profile, who were assessed twice during 4 years of follow-up. Methods: We tested two possible approaches to correct the retest effect and calculated the Reliable Change Index. Results: We observed increased scores at the follow-up assessment after 4 years, but the results indicate a modest occurrence of retest effects. The regression difference correction successfully generated follow-up corrected scores, while the mean difference did not provide effective corrections. Sociodemographic characteristics had a minor impact on the retest. Conclusions: We recommend the regression difference correction for retest effects. The absence of this methodological approach might lead to biased results using longitudinal cognitive scores.

Indexed as

AgedLongitudinal StudiesPsychometricsReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID35720646
PMCPMC9173799

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.