ArticleNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2023
Clinimetrics of the cognitive section of the Italian ALS Cognitive Behavioral Screen (ALS-CBS™).
Article in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Translation and psychometric validation of the Persian version of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis cognitive behavioral screen (ALS-CBS) and revised amyotrophic lateral sclerosis functional rating scale (ALSFRS-R).Current journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Ecological validity of performance-based cognitive screeners in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: preliminary evidence.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024Article
- Prognostic Factors and Epidemiology of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis in Southeastern United States.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2024Article
- Equating norms between the ALS Cognitive Behavioral Screen (ALS-CBS™) and the Edinburgh Cognitive and Behavioural ALS Screen (ECAS) in non-demented ALS patients.Journal of neurology · 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
23 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe present study aimed at (1) providing further validity and reliability evidence for the Italian version of the cognitive section of the ALS Cognitive Behavioral Screen (ALS-CBS™) and (2) testing its diagnostics within an Italian ALS cohort, as well as at (3) exploring its capability to discriminate patients from healthy controls (HCs).
methodsN = 293 non-demented ALS patients were administered the cognitive sections of the ALS-CBS™ and Edinburgh Cognitive and Behavioural ALS Screen (ECAS). N = 96 HCs demographically matched with N = 96 patients were also administered the cognitive section of the ALS-CBS™. In patients, factorial and construct validity, internal reliability, and diagnostics against a defective score on the cognitive section of the ECAS were tested. Case-control discrimination was assessed via a logistic regression.
resultsALS-CBS™ cognitive subscales were underpinned by a simple, unidimensional structure, internally reliable (McDonald's ω = 0.74), and mostly related with ECAS executive and fluency scores (r DISCUSSION: The cognitive section of the Italian ALS-CBS™ is a valid, reliable, and diagnostically sound ALS-specific screener for detecting frontotemporal, executive-/attentive-based cognitive inefficiency in non-demented ALS patients, being also able to discriminate them from normotypical individuals.
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.