Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35743411›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022

The Need for a Specialized Neurocognitive Screen and Consistent Cognitive Impairment Criteria in Spinal Cord Injury: Analysis of the Suitability of the Neuropsychiatry Unit Cognitive Assessment Tool.

Danielle Sandalic, Yvonne Tran, Ashley Craig, Mohit Arora, Ilaria Pozzato, Grahame Simpson, Bamini Gopinath, Jasbeer Kaur, Sachin Shetty, Gerard Weber and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Cognition and Quality of Life of People with Spinal Cord Injury.Progress in rehabilitation medicine · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

12 authors.

Danielle SandalicJohn Walsh Centre Rehabilitation Research, The Kolling Institute, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW 2065, Australia.
Yvonne TranAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW 2113, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1741-4205
Ashley CraigJohn Walsh Centre Rehabilitation Research, The Kolling Institute, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW 2065, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7647-7604
Mohit AroraJohn Walsh Centre Rehabilitation Research, The Kolling Institute, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW 2065, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1024-3682
Ilaria PozzatoJohn Walsh Centre Rehabilitation Research, The Kolling Institute, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW 2065, Australia.
Grahame SimpsonJohn Walsh Centre Rehabilitation Research, The Kolling Institute, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW 2065, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8156-9060
Bamini GopinathAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW 2113, Australia.
Jasbeer KaurSCI Unit, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW 2065, Australia.
Sachin ShettySCI Unit, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, NSW 2031, Australia.
Gerard WeberSCI Unit, Royal Rehab, Ryde, NSW 2112, Australia.
Lisa BenadSCI Unit, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW 2065, Australia.
James W MiddletonJohn Walsh Centre Rehabilitation Research, The Kolling Institute, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW 2065, Australia.

Funding

icare NSW icare 2019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The assessment of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) following spinal cord injury (SCI) is vital. However, there are no neurocognitive screens which have been developed specifically to meet the unique requirements for SCI, nor are there consistent MCI criteria applied to determine the rates of MCI. The aim of this study was to determine the suitability of a neurocognitive screen for assessing MCI in adults with SCI. A total of 127 participants were recruited. Socio-demographic and injury related variables were assessed. All participants completed the screen. Descriptive statistics are provided for total/domain screen scores and all items, and the screen’s ability to distinguish MCI was examined. Congeneric confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were employed to investigate structural validity. The screen total score was sensitive to differences in neurocognitive capacity, as well as for time since the injury occurred (p < 0.01). The MCI rate ranged between 17−36%. CFA revealed attention and visuoconstruction domains had an adequate model fit and executive function had poor fit, while CFA models for memory and language did not fit the data (did not converge), hence could not be determined. While the screen differentiated between those with MCI and those without, and MCI as a function of time since injury, limitations of its suitability for assessing MCI after SCI exist, demonstrating the need for a specialized neurocognitive screen for adults with SCI.

Indexed as

attentionexecutive functionmemorymild cognitive impairmentneurocognitive functionprocessing speedspinal cord injury

Identifiers

PMID35743411
PMCPMC9225056

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.