ArticlePloS one2024
Validation of a web-based self-administered test for cognitive assessment in a Swedish geriatric setting.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Computerized cognitive tests have the potential to cost-effectively detect and monitor cognitive impairments and thereby facilitate treatment for these conditions. However, relatively few of these tests have been validated in a variety of populations. Brain on Track, a self-administered web-based test, has previously been shown to have a good ability to differentiate between healthy individuals and patients with cognitive impairment in Portuguese populations. The objective of this study was to validate the differential ability and evaluate the usability of Brain on Track in a Swedish memory clinic setting. Brain on Track was administered to 30 patients with mild cognitive impairment/mild dementia and 30 healthy controls, all scheduled to perform the test from home after one week and after three months. To evaluate the usability, the patient group was interviewed after completion of the testing phase. Patients scored lower than healthy controls at both the first (median score 42.4 vs 54.1, p<0.001) and the second test (median score 42.3 vs 55.0, p<0.001). The test-retest intra-class correlation was 0.87. A multiple logistic regression model accounting for effects of age, gender and education rendered an ability of Brain on Track to differentiate between the groups with an area under the receiver operation characteristics curve of 0.90 for the first and 0.88 for the second test. In the subjective evaluation, nine patients left positive comments, nine were negative whereas five left mixed comments regarding the test experience. Sixty percent of patients had received help from relatives to log on to the platform. In conclusion, Brain on Track performed well in differentiating healthy controls from patients with cognitive impairment and showed a high test-retest reliability, on par with results from previous studies. However, the substantial proportion of patients needing help to log in could to some extent limit an independent use of the platform.
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.