SynthesisJournal of Alzheimer's disease reports2023
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Brief Cognitive Instruments to Evaluate Suspected Dementia in Chinese-Speaking Populations.
Synthesis in Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports, 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.
- Development and validation of a tool for the assessment of psychiatric disability in patients with traumatic brain injury.Indian journal of psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chinese is the most commonly spoken world language; however, most cognitive tests were developed and validated in the West. It is essential to find out which tests are valid and practical in Chinese speaking people with suspected dementia. Objective: We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of brief cognitive tests adapted for Chinese-speaking populations in people presenting for assessment of suspected dementia. Methods: We searched electronic databases for studies reporting brief (≤20 minutes) cognitive test's sensitivity and specificity as part of dementia diagnosis for Chinese-speaking populations in clinical settings. We assessed quality using Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (CEBM) criteria and translation and cultural adaptation using the Manchester Translation Reporting Questionnaire (MTRQ), and Manchester Cultural Adaptation Reporting Questionnaire (MCAR). We assessed heterogeneity and combined sensitivity in meta-analyses. Results: 38 studies met inclusion criteria and 22 were included in meta-analyses. None met the highest CEBM criteria. Five studies met the highest criteria of MTRQ and MCAR. In meta-analyses of studies with acceptable heterogeneity (I Conclusions: Current evidence is that the ACE-R and ACE-III are the best brief cognitive assessments for dementia and mild cognitive impairment in Chinese-speaking populations. They may improve time taken to diagnosis, allowing people to access interventions and future planning.
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.