Trial reportDementia and geriatric cognitive disorders2023
Supervised, Self-Administered Tablet-Based Cognitive Assessment in Neurodegenerative Disorders and Stroke.
Trial report in Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical usability of telephone-based cognitive screening tests in Parkinson's disease.Journal of Parkinson's disease · 2026Article
- Prognostic Value of Elevated miR-502-3p in Patients With Post-Stroke Cognitive Impairment.Brain and behavior · 2026Article
- Molecular pathways: the quest for effective MAO-B inhibitors in neurodegenerative therapy.Molecular biology reports · 2025Review
- Design of trials in lacunar stroke and cerebral small vessel disease: review and experience with the LACunar Intervention Trial 2 (LACI-2).Stroke and vascular neurology · 2024Review
- Investigating the application of "Guttmann Cognitest"Frontiers in 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAs the population ages, the prevalence of cognitive impairment is expanding. Given the recent pandemic, there is a need for remote testing modalities to assess cognitive deficits in individuals with neurological disorders. Self-administered, remote, tablet-based cognitive assessments would be clinically valuable if they can detect and classify cognitive deficits as effectively as traditional in-person neuropsychological testing.
methodsWe tested whether the Miro application, a tablet-based neurocognitive platform, measured the same cognitive domains as traditional pencil-and-paper neuropsychological tests. Seventy-nine patients were recruited and then randomized to either undergo pencil-and-paper or tablet testing first. Twenty-nine age-matched healthy controls completed the tablet-based assessments. We identified Pearson correlations between Miro tablet-based modules and corresponding neuropsychological tests in patients and compared scores of patients with neurological disorders with those of healthy controls using t tests.
resultsStatistically significant Pearson correlations between the neuropsychological tests and their tablet equivalents were found for all domains with moderate (r > 0.3) or strong (r > 0.7) correlations in 16 of 17 tests (p < 0.05). All tablet-based subtests differentiated healthy controls from neurologically impaired patients by t tests except for the spatial span forward and finger tapping modules. Participants reported enjoyment of the tablet-based testing, denied that it provoked anxiety, and noted no preference between modalities.
conclusionsThis tablet-based application was found to be widely acceptable to participants. This study supports the validity of these tablet-based assessments in the differentiation of healthy controls from patients with neurocognitive deficits in a variety of cognitive domains and across multiple neurological disease etiologies.
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.