ArticleBMJ open2023
Feasibility, comprehensibility and acceptability of the VISION-Cog, a novel tool to assess cognitive impairment in visually impaired older adults: a cross-sectional pilot study in Singapore.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe pilot-tested the
designThe VISION-Cog was iteratively fine-tuned through pilot studies and expert-panel discussion. In the first pilot study (Stage 1), we recruited 15 visually impaired and cognitively normal participants aged ≥60 years to examine the pilot VISION-Cog's feasibility (length of time to administer), comprehensibility (clarity of instructions) and acceptability (participant burden). We then presented the pilot results to the expert panel (Stage 2) who decided via agreement on a revised version of the VISION-Cog. Subsequently, we conducted a second pilot study (Stage 3) on another four participants to ascertain improvement in feasibility, comprehensibility and acceptability of the revised version.
settingSingapore Eye Research Institute.
participantsNineteen Asian adults aged ≥60 years with visual impairment (defined as near visual acuity worse than N8) were recruited. OUTCOME MEASURE: Revised VISION-Cog.
resultThe VISION-Cog was deemed feasible, taking approximately 60 min to complete on average. All participants agreed that the test instructions were clear, and the battery did not cause undue discomfort or frustration. The data collector rated all tests as very user-friendly (score of 5/5). Minor modifications to the pilot VISION-Cog were suggested by the panel to improve its safety, clarity of instructions and content validity, which were incorporated and iteratively tested in the second pilot study until no further issues emerged.
conclusionsUsing an iterative mixed-methods process, we have developed a feasible, comprehensible and acceptable 5-domain and 9-item visually independent VISION-Cog test battery suitable to assist CI diagnosis in older adults with visual impairment. We will assess its diagnostic potential against clinician-based assessment of CI in subsequent phases.
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.