ArticleSchizophrenia research2022
Comparison of two cognitive screening measures in a longitudinal sample of youth at-risk for psychosis.
Article in Schizophrenia research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Remote assessment of the Penn computerised neurocognitive battery in individuals with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundValidated screening tools are needed to detect subtle cognitive impairment in individuals at-risk for developing psychosis. Here, the utility of the Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) and Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery (CNB) were evaluated for detecting cognitive impairment in individuals with psychosis spectrum (PS) symptoms.
methodsParticipants (n = 229; 54 % female) completed the MMSE and CNB at baseline and two-year follow-up. PS (n = 91) and typically developing (TD; n = 138) participants were enrolled at baseline based on the presence or absence of PS symptoms. After two years, 65 participants remained PS, 104 participants remained TD, 23 participants had Emergent (EP) subthreshold PS symptoms, and 37 participants were experiencing Other Psychopathology (OP).
resultsGenerally, those with PS had lower scores than TD on both the MMSE (p < 0.0001) and CNB (p < 0.0001). Additionally, OP participants performed lower on the MMSE than TD (p = 0.02). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses indicated similar area under the curve (AUCs) for the two instruments (0.67); the MMSE showed higher specificity (0.71 vs. 0.62), while the CNB showed higher sensitivity (0.66 vs 0.52). Use of the MMSE and CNB in combination provided the highest diagnostic classification.
conclusionThe MMSE and CNB can be used to screen for cognitive impairment in PS. The MMSE is better at ruling out PS-related cognitive impairment while the CNB is better at ruling in PS-related cognitive impairment. Overall, our results indicate that both tests are useful in screening for cognitive impairment, particularly in combination, in a PS population.
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.