Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35741580›Full record

ArticleBrain sciences2022

Point-of-Care Testing Using a Neuropsychology Pocketcard Set: A Preliminary Validation Study.

Emily Bellartz, Milena Pertz, Johannes Jungilligens, Ilka Kleffner, Jörg Wellmer, Uwe Schlegel, Patrizia Thoma, Stoyan Popkirov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Emily BellartzDepartment of Neurology, University Hospital Knappschaftskrankenhaus Bochum, Ruhr University Bochum, 44892 Bochum, Germany.
Milena PertzDepartment of Neurology, University Hospital Knappschaftskrankenhaus Bochum, Ruhr University Bochum, 44892 Bochum, Germany.
Johannes JungilligensDepartment of Neurology, University Hospital Knappschaftskrankenhaus Bochum, Ruhr University Bochum, 44892 Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4846-8337
Ilka KleffnerDepartment of Neurology, University Hospital Knappschaftskrankenhaus Bochum, Ruhr University Bochum, 44892 Bochum, Germany.
Jörg WellmerRuhr-Epileptology, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Knappschaftskrankenhaus Bochum, Ruhr University Bochum, 44892 Bochum, Germany.
Uwe SchlegelDepartment of Neurology, University Hospital Knappschaftskrankenhaus Bochum, Ruhr University Bochum, 44892 Bochum, Germany.
Patrizia ThomaNeuropsychological Therapy Centre (NTC)/Clinical Neuropsychology, Faculty of Psychology, Ruhr University Bochum, 44801 Bochum, Germany.
Stoyan PopkirovDepartment of Neurology, University Hospital Knappschaftskrankenhaus Bochum, Ruhr University Bochum, 44892 Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6168-0036

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neurocognitive screening instruments usually require printed sheets and additional accessories, and can be unsuitable for low-threshold use during ward rounds or emergency workup, especially in patients with motor impairments. Here, we test the utility of a newly developed neuropsychology pocketcard set for point-of-care testing. For aphasia and neglect assessment, modified versions of the Language Screening Test and the Bells Test were validated on 63 and 60 acute stroke unit patients, respectively, against expert clinical evaluation and the original pen-and-paper Bells Test. The pocketcard aphasia test achieved an excellent area under the curve (AUC) of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.88−1, p < 0.001). Using an optimal cut-off of ≥2 mistakes, sensitivity was 91% and specificity was 81%. The pocketcard Bells Task, measured against the clinical neglect diagnosis, achieved higher sensitivity (89%) and specificity (88%) than the original paper-based instrument (78% and 75%, respectively). Separately, executive function tests (modified versions of the Trail Making Test [TMT] A and B, custom Stroop color naming task, vigilance ‘A’ Montreal Cognitive Assessment item) were validated on 44 inpatients with epilepsy against the EpiTrack® test battery. Pocketcard TMT performance was significantly correlated with the original EpiTrack® versions (A: r = 0.64, p < 0.001; B: r = 0.75, p < 0.001). AUCs for the custom Stroop task, TMT A and TMT B for discriminating between normal and pathological EpiTrack® scores were acceptable, excellent and outstanding, respectively. Quick point-of-care testing using a pocketcard set is feasible and yields diagnostically valid information.

Indexed as

aphasiaepilepsyexecutive functionsneglectneuropsychologypocketcardstroke

Identifiers

PMID35741580
PMCPMC9221077

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.