Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36380695›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of neurology2023

Validity of the Brief Assessment of Impaired Cognition case-finding instrument for identification of dementia subgroups and staging of dementia.

Kasper Jørgensen, Thomas Rune Nielsen, Ann Nielsen, Frans Boch Waldorff, Peter Høgh, Hanne Gottrup, Karsten Vestergaard, Anne-Britt Oxbøll, Gunhild Waldemar

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of neurology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Conversion between the Brief assessment of Impaired Cognition, Brief Assessment of Impaired Cognition Questionnaire, and Mini-Mental State Examination in a mixed clinical sample.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Article
  2. Validation of the brief assessment of impaired cognition (BASIC) and brief assessment of impaired cognition questionnaire (BASIC-Q) in Italy.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kasper JørgensenDanish Dementia Research Centre, Department of Neurology, University of Copenhagen-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-1395-5143
Thomas Rune NielsenDanish Dementia Research Centre, Department of Neurology, University of Copenhagen-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ann NielsenDanish Dementia Research Centre, Department of Neurology, University of Copenhagen-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Frans Boch WaldorffSection of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-7859-633X
Peter HøghDepartment of Neurology, Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark.
Hanne GottrupDementia Clinic, Department of Neurology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Karsten VestergaardDementia Clinic, Department of Neurology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Anne-Britt OxbøllDanish Dementia Research Centre, Department of Neurology, University of Copenhagen-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Gunhild WaldemarDanish Dementia Research Centre, Department of Neurology, University of Copenhagen-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
University of Copenhagen · DKAalborg University Hospital · DKAarhus University Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeThe aims of this study were to examine the psychometric properties of the Brief Assessment of Impaired Cognition (BASIC) case-finding instrument in clinical settings focusing on (i) test-retest reliability, (ii) the discriminative validity of BASIC and its components for identification of Alzheimer disease (AD) dementia and non-AD dementia, and (iii) the association of expert clinical rating of cognitive status with BASIC performance.

methodsThe test-retest reliability analysis was based on a sample of general practice patients (n = 59) retested with a mean interval of 19 days. Discriminative validity analyses and analysis of the association of cognitive status with BASIC performance were based on data from the primary validation study of BASIC in memory clinics.

resultsThe test-retest reliability of BASIC was high (r = 0.861). No significant difference in discriminative validity was found for identification of AD dementia (sensitivity = 0.99, specificity = 0.98) and non-AD dementia (sensitivity = 0.90, specificity = 0.98). All components of BASIC contributed to the high discriminative validity of both AD and non-AD dementia. BASIC performance was significantly correlated with expert clinical rating of the cognitive status of patients. A crude staging model for cognitive status using BASIC score intervals had superior classification accuracy (70%) compared to a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score range-based model (58% accuracy).

conclusionsBASIC is a reliable and valid case-finding instrument for AD dementia and non-AD dementia in clinical settings. BASIC performance is significantly associated with the degree of cognitive impairment, and BASIC seems to be superior to MMSE for staging of impairment.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseCognitive DysfunctionCognitionHumansNeuropsychological TestsReproducibility of ResultsAlzheimer dementiacognitive assessment screening instrumentdementiareliabilityvalidity

Identifiers

PMID36380695
PMCPMC10107638
OpenAlexW4309159370

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.