ArticleResearch square2023
Validating virtual administration of neuropsychological testing in Parkinson disease: a pilot study.
Article in Research square, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background COVID-19 has highlighted the need for remote cognitive testing. Virtual testing may lessen burden and can reach a larger patient population. The reliability and validity of virtual cognitive testing in Parkinson disease (PD) is unknown. Objectives To validate neuropsychological tests for virtual administration in PD. Methods Participants enrolled in an observational, cognition-focused study completed a rater-administered cognitive battery in-person and via video conference 3-7 days apart. Order of administration was counterbalanced. Analyses to compare performance by type of administration (virtual versus in-person) included paired t-test, intraclass correlation (ICC) and linear mixed-effects models. Results Data for 35 (62.9% male) PD participants (62.5% normal cognition, 37.5% cognitive impairment) were analyzed. Only the semantic verbal fluency test demonstrated a difference in score by administration type, with a significantly better score when administered virtually (paired t-test p = 0.011 and linear mixed-effects model p = 0.012). Only the Dementia Rating Scale-2, Trails A test and phonemic verbal fluency demonstrated good reliability (ICC value 0.75-0.90) for virtual versus in-person administration, and values for visit 1 versus visit 2 were similarly low overall. Trail making tests were successfully administered virtually to only 18 (51.4%) participants due to technical issues. Conclusions Virtual cognitive testing overall is feasible in PD, and virtual and in-person cognitive testing generate similar scores at the group level, but reliability is poor or moderate for most tests. Given that mode of test administration, learning effects and technical difficulties explained relatively little of the low test-retest reliability observed, there may be significant short-term variability in cognitive performance in PD in general, which has important implications for clinical care and research.
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.