ArticleFrontiers in aging neuroscience2022
The discriminant validity of single-question assessments of subjective cognitive complaints in an Asian older adult population.
Article in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cognitive Effects of a Cognitive Stimulation Programme on Trained Domains in Older Adults with Subjective Memory Complaints: Randomised Controlled Trial.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Trial
- Proactive health management strategies for older adults with motoric cognitive risk syndrome: a scoping review.BMC geriatrics · 2025Article
- Evaluation criteria for diagnosing motoric cognitive risk syndrome: a scoping review.Dementia & neuropsychologia · 2025Review
- Entropy-Based Machine Learning Model for Fast Diagnosis and Monitoring of Parkinson's Disease.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Cost-benefit and discriminant validity of a stepwise dementia case-finding approach in an Asian older adult community.General psychiatry · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the discriminant validity of three different single-question assessments of subjective cognitive complaints (SCC) for dementia in a community-based older adult population in Singapore. Methods: Eligible older adults aged ≥60 were recruited into phase I for identifying those who require further assessment using the Abbreviated Mental Test (AMT) and progressive forgetfulness question (PFQ). Participants who failed either tests entered phase II and were administered various single-question assessments of SCC, such as the 8th question on the patient Ascertain Dementia 8 (AD8-8 Results: A total of 3,780 participants were assessed at phase I, of which 957 entered and completed phase II. Of whom, 911 were dementia-free and 46 had dementia. The MoCA (13/14) displayed good sensitivity (95.6%), specificity (81.5%), and overall accuracy (82.1%) for dementia detection. The GDS-10 and AD8-8 Conclusion and implications: Combining a reliable single-question SCC assessment with an objective tool can efficiently discriminate dementia patients from healthy older adults in the community.
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.