ArticleJRSM open2022
Accuracy of telephone screening tools to identify dementia patients remotely: systematic review.
Article in JRSM open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acute exercise alters brain glucose metabolism in aging and Alzheimer's disease.The Journal of physiology · 2026Trial
- Evaluating the accuracy and reliability of telephone-derived Clinical Dementia Rating scores: A comparative analysis with in-person assessments.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Article
- Effects of extreme heat on the onset of dementia and all-cause mortality: A 3-year follow-up study in a large population-based cohort in Japan.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Article
- An Overview of Reviews on Telemedicine and Telehealth in Dementia Care: Mixed Methods Synthesis.JMIR mental health · 2025Review
- Home-Based Digital Technologies to Support Aging-in-Place for Rural African American People With Alzheimer Disease and Their Care Partners: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Feasibility Study.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Dementia prevalence in the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Article
- Comparison of in-person vs. remote administration of cognitive screening tools for people with ALS.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024Article
- Remote assessment of cognition and quality of life following radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: deep-learning-based predictive models and MRI correlates.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2024Article
- Analysis of agreement between measures of subjective cognitive impairment and probable dementia in the National Health and Aging Trends Study.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID19 pandemic highlighted the need for remote diagnosis of cognitive impairment and dementia. Telephone screening for dementia may facilitate prompt diagnosis and optimisation of care. However, it is not clear how accurate telephone screening tools are compared with face-to-face screening. We searched Cochrane, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PubMed and Scopus for all English language papers published between January 1975 and February 2021 which compared telephone screening for dementia/ mild cognitive impairment and an in-person reference standard, performed within six-weeks. We subsequently searched paper reference lists and contacted authors if data were missing. Three reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed study quality using an adapted version of the Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal tool. Twenty-one studies including 944 participants were found. No one test appears more accurate, with similar validities as in-person testing. Cut-offs for screening differed between studies based on demographics and acceptability thresholds and meta-analysis was not appropriate. Overall the results suggest telephone screening is acceptably sensitive and specific however, given the limited data, this finding must be treated with some caution. It may not be suitable for those with hearing impairments and anxiety around technology. Few studies were carried out in general practice where most screening occurs and further research is recommended in such lower prevalence environments.
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.