ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Improving Assessment of Cognitive Impairment after Spinal Cord Injury: Methods to Reduce the Risk of Reporting False Positives.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The application of stem cell sheets for neuronal regeneration after spinal cord injury: a systematic review of pre-clinical studies.Systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Article
- Cognitive Failure in Adults with Spinal Cord Injury: A Valuable Adjunct Measure for Enhancing Cognitive Assessment and Rehabilitation Outcomes.Neurology international · 2023Article
- Cognitive Reserve and Its Association with Cognitive and Mental Health Status following an Acute Spinal Cord Injury.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adults with spinal cord injury (SCI) are reported to have heightened risk of cognitive impairment, notably mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Reports of increased risk of MCI are almost exclusively based on cross-sectional assessments of cognitive function using norm-referenced scores. Norm-referenced single-point assessments do not reflect cognitive decline at the individual level but rather represent between group differences in cognitive function. The practice of relying solely on norm-referenced assessment to study MCI after SCI is therefore problematic as it lends to potential misclassification of MCI. Premorbid intelligence estimates permit comparison of people's actual versus expected cognitive function and thereby can be used to validate the presence of genuine cognitive decline. These are not utilized in the assessment of MCI after SCI. This study simulated data for 500,000 adults with SCI to compare norm-referenced and premorbid-intelligence methods of screening for MCI to examine the potential extent of MCI misclassification after SCI resulting from the overreliance on norm-referenced methods and exclusion of premorbid intelligence methods. One in five to one in 13 simulated adults with SCI were potentially misclassified as having MCI showing that measures of premorbid cognitive function must be included in assessment of cognitive function after SCI.
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.