Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36124322›Full record

ArticleNeuro-oncology practice2022

The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in neuro-oncology: A pilot study of feasibility and utility in telehealth and in-person clinical assessments.

Varna Jammula, James L Rogers, Elizabeth Vera, Alexa Christ, Heather E Leeper, Alvina Acquaye, Nicole Briceno, Anna Choi, Ewa Grajkowska, Jason E Levine and 15 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuro-oncology practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

25 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Varna JammulaNeuro-Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0369-8139
James L RogersNeuro-Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Elizabeth VeraNeuro-Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Alexa ChristNeuro-Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Heather E LeeperNeuro-Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Alvina AcquayeNeuro-Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Nicole BricenoNeuro-Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Anna ChoiNeuro-Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Ewa GrajkowskaNeuro-Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Jason E LevineOffice of Information Technology, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Matthew LindsleyNeuro-Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Jennifer ReyesNeuro-Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Kayla N RocheNeuro-Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Michael TimmerNeuro-Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Lisa BorisNeuro-Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Eric BurtonNeuro-Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Nicole LolloNeuro-Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Marissa PanzerNeuro-Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Matthew A Smith-CohnNeuro-Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Marta Penas-PradoNeuro-Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Valentina PillaiNeuro-Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Brett J TheelerDepartment of Neurology, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Jing WuNeuro-Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Mark R GilbertNeuro-Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Terri S ArmstrongNeuro-Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2414-0492
National Institutes of Health · USUniformed Services University of the Health Sciences · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Cognitive impairments are a common burden for patients with primary CNS tumors. Neuropsychological assessment batteries can be too lengthy, which limits their use as an objective measure of cognition during routine care. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and utility of the brief Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in routine in-person and telehealth visits (as a result of the global COVID-19 pandemic) with neuro-oncology patients. Methods: Seventy-one adults with primary CNS tumors completed MoCA testing in person (n = 47) and via telehealth (n = 24). Correlation analysis and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including symptom burden and interference, perceived cognition, general health status, and anxiety and depression, were included in this study. Feasibility was assessed through a provider satisfaction questionnaire. Results: Patients were primarily White (83%), college-educated (71%) males (54%) with high-grade tumors (66%). The average total score on the MoCA administered in person was 25 (range: 6-30), with 34% classified as abnormal, and the average total score via telehealth was 26 (range: 12-30), with 29% classified as abnormal. Providers reported satisfaction in using the MoCA during routine clinical care, both in person and via telehealth. Lower MoCA scores correlated with worse symptom severity, KPS, age, education, and previous treatment. Conclusions: The MoCA was feasible in clinical and telehealth settings, and its relationship to clinical characteristics and PROs highlights the need for both objective and patient-reported measures of cognition to understand the overall cognitive profile of a patient with a CNS tumor.

Indexed as

CNS tumorscognitive dysfunctionneurocognitive testingtelehealth

Identifiers

PMID36124322
PMCPMC9384084
OpenAlexW4280583564

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.