SynthesisAging clinical and experimental research2023
The application of saccades to assess cognitive impairment among older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Aging clinical and experimental research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early screening of mild cognitive impairment based on eye-tracking technology: a cross-sectional study.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2026Article
- Advances in ocular motor and pupil biomarkers for neurological disorders.Brain communications · 2026Review
- Eye movement abnormalities in normal pressure hydrocephalus: a video-oculographic study.Journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Memory-Guided Saccades in Subacute and Chronic Stroke: Secondary Data Analysis of the N-PEP-12 Clinical Study.Biomedicines · 2024Article
- An effective screening model for subjective cognitive decline in community-dwelling older adults based on gait analysis and eye tracking.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2024Article
- Abnormal eye movements: relationship with clinical symptoms and predictive value for Alzheimer's disease.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSaccade is a novel and feasible method for cognition assessment and has potential to screen older people with cognitive impairment.
objectivesTo systematically summarize the evidence and determine whether different saccade parameters can effectively identify patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD).
methodsEnglish and Chinese databases were searched until 19 April 2022. Studies analyzing saccade parameters in older adults with normal cognition, MCI, or AD were included. Two researchers independently performed the screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal. Meta-analyses were conducted and standard mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated with a random effects model.
resultsThirty-five studies were included, and 26 studies were pooled for the meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that patients with cognitive impairment exhibited longer latency and lower accuracy rates in the prosaccade and antisaccade tasks, along with lower corrected error rates in the antisaccade tasks. However, the pooled results for antisaccades were more stable, providing the ability to distinguish patients with cognitive impairment among older adults. The results of the subgroup analyses revealed that only the accuracy rates of the antisaccades differed significantly between people with MCI and AD. Regarding the differences between older adults with normal cognition and those with MCI, the effect sizes of latency and the accuracy rates of saccades as well as the corrected error rates of antisaccades were significant.
conclusionsSaccades, especially antisaccades, are a potential screening and assessment tool for distinguishing older adults with MCI or AD from those with normal cognition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37676429What 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.