ArticleFrontiers in neurology2023
Investigating the application of "Guttmann Cognitest"
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Digital solutions for cognitive assessment are currently not only widely used in experimental contexts but can also be useful in clinical practice for efficient screening and longitudinal follow-up. The "Guttmann Cognitest" Method: Here, we present results from a validation in two different populations: one consisting of older adults, and the other comprising young and middle-aged individuals, some of them affected by acquired brain injury. To perform a convergent validity test, older adults were also administered with the MOCA, while young and middle-aged individuals were administered with a short neuropsychological assessment including gold-standard neuropsychological tests. We also conducted sensitivity and specificity analysis to establish the utility of this instrument in identifying potential cognitive dysfunctions in the two groups. Results: Results demonstrated strong convergent validity as well as good specificity and sensitivity characteristics. Discussion: This tool is a valid and useful instrument to assess cognitive functioning and detecting potential cases of cognitive dysfunctions in older adults and clinical populations.
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.