ArticleCerebral circulation - cognition and behavior2021
Comparison of Oxford Cognitive Screen and Montreal Cognitive Assessment feasibility in the stroke unit setting. A pilot study.
Article in Cerebral circulation - cognition and behavior, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reflections on the Hungarian Oxford Cognitive Screen in post-stroke cognitive care.Cerebral circulation - cognition and behavior · 2026Article
- Potential challenges to harmonize post-stroke cognitive assessment and its prognostic value: a narrative review.Journal of medicine and life · 2024Review
- Improving diagnostic accuracy of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment to identify post-stroke cognitive impairment.Scientific reports · 2024Observational
- Dementia after Ischemic Stroke, from Molecular Biomarkers to Therapeutic Options.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Methods: Results: Both tests were feasible in the stroke unit setting and had a high level of acceptability by patients. MoCA test was fully completed by 25 patients, OCS by 21 patients. The OCS administration time was longer than that of the MoCA. However, OCS was perceived less demanding than MoCA by patients. Twenty patients completed both the MoCA and the OCS entirely, and only 2 of them did not show any impairment in both tests. Seventeen patients showed at least an impaired domain on the OCS and 15 patients presented with a MoCA global score below cut-off for cognitive impairment. Conclusions: Our preliminary study did not show a superiority of the OCS over the widely used MoCA, and suggests the need for further validation in larger samples of stroke patients, exploring tests accuracy in detecting cognitive post-stroke impairment.
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.