ArticleDigital health
"Guttmann Cognitest
Article in Digital health. 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, 0 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 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: As the world population continues to age, the prevalence of neurological diseases, such as dementia, poses a significant challenge to society. Detecting cognitive impairment at an early stage is vital in preserving and enhancing cognitive function. Digital tools, particularly mHealth, offer a practical solution for large-scale population screening and prompt follow-up assessments of cognitive function, thus overcoming economic and time limitations. Objective: In this work, two versions of a digital solution called Guttmann Cognitest Methods: Two hundred and one middle-aged adults used the first version (Group A), while 132 used the second one, which included improved tutorials and practice screens (Group B). This second version was also validated in an older age group (Group C). Results: This digital solution was found to be highly satisfactory in terms of usability and feasibility, with good acceptability among all three groups. Specifically for Group B, the system usability scale score obtained classifies the solution as the best imaginable in terms of usability. Conclusions: Guttmann Cognitest
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.