Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38191318›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2024

Comparing analog and digital neurocognitive tests with older adults: a study of the ISPOCD battery vs. a digital test battery from Mindmore.

Anahita Amirpour, Jeanette Eckerblad, Lina Bergman, Ulrica Nilsson

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05253612 (Comparison Between Analog Neurocognitive Tests Conducted by a Trained Test Leader Versus Self-administered Digital Tests), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05253612 nacompletednot on this map

Comparison Between Analog Neurocognitive Tests Conducted by a Trained Test Leader Versus Self-administered Digital Tests: a Protocol for an Equivalence Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorKarolinska InstitutetRan2022 to 2022Enrolled50ConditionsNeurocognitive Decline, Feasibility, Costs, InterviewsArmsAnalog testing conducted by a trained test leader using, ISPOCD test battery, self-administered Mindmore digital cognitive screening battery
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Remote Neuropsychological Testing as an Alternative to Traditional Methods-a Convergent Validity Study.Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Anahita AmirpourDivision of Nursing, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Alfred Nobels Allé 23, C4, 141 83, Stockholm, Sweden. anahita.amirpour@ki.se.
Jeanette EckerbladDivision of Nursing, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Alfred Nobels Allé 23, C4, 141 83, Stockholm, Sweden.
Lina BergmanDivision of Nursing, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Alfred Nobels Allé 23, C4, 141 83, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ulrica NilssonDivision of Nursing, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Alfred Nobels Allé 23, C4, 141 83, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDelayed neurocognitive recovery and neurocognitive disorder are common postoperative complications among older adults. The assessment of these complications traditionally relies on analog neurocognitive tests, predominantly using the test battery from the ISPOCD-study as the standard approach. However, analog tests are time-consuming and necessitate trained staff which poses limitations. The potential availability of a digital neurocognitive test as an alternative to the ISPOCD remains unknown. We conducted a comparative study between the analog test battery from ISPOCD and the self-administrated digital test battery developed by Mindmore.

methodsWe conducted a crossover study with 50 cognitively healthy older adults ≥ 60 years of age recruited in Stockholm Sweden, between February and April 2022. The primary outcome focused on measuring comparability between the two test batteries. Our secondary outcomes included assessing participants' perceptions and attitudes about the tests with qualitative interviews and their usability experiences.

resultsFifty older adults, mean age 76, female 56%, with a university or college degree 48% participated in the study. The sub tests in two test batteries demonstrated a medium-large correlation (r = 0.3-0.5), except for one measure. For four out of six measures, significant differences were found with medium to large effect sizes, ranging from 0.57-1.43. Two categories were recognized in the qualitative analysis: self-competing in a safe environment, and experience with technology. Participants expressed feeling safe and at ease during the assessment, with some preferring the digital test over the analog. Participants reported a high level of usability with the digital test and a majority participants (n = 47) reported they would undergo the digital test for a potential future surgery.

conclusionsThe digital test battery developed by Mindmore offers several advantages, including rapid access to test results, easy comprehension, and use for participants, thereby increased accessibility of cognitive screening. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05253612; ClinicalTrials.gov, 24/02/2022.

Indexed as

EmotionsHealth StatusAgedCross-Over StudiesEducational StatusFemaleHumansMental Status and Dementia TestsNeurocognitive test batteriesNeuropsychologyPostoperative cognitive complicationsPostoperative neurocognitive disorder

Identifiers

PMID38191318
PMCPMC10775484

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.