ArticleJournal of neurology2024
A Delphi consensus to identify the key screening tests/questions for a digital neurological examination for epidemiological research.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- The use of routinely collected structural neuroimaging to identify cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis.BMC neurology · 2026Article
- Identification and prioritization of population health indices in Iranian population, a qualitative study.BMC public health · 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
16 authors at 11 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMost neurological diseases have no curative treatment; therefore, focusing on prevention is key. Continuous research to uncover the protective and risk factors associated with different neurological diseases is crucial to successfully inform prevention strategies. eHealth has been showing promising advantages in healthcare and public health and may therefore be relevant to facilitate epidemiological studies.
objectiveIn this study, we performed a Delphi consensus exercise to identify the key screening tests to inform the development of a digital neurological examination tool for epidemiological research.
methodsTwelve panellists (six experts in neurological examination, five experts in data collection-two were also experts in the neurological examination, and three experts in participant experience) of different nationalities joined the Delphi exercise. Experts in the neurological examination provided a selection of items that allow ruling out neurological impairment and can be performed by trained health workers. The items were then rated by them and other experts in terms of their feasibility and acceptability.
resultsTen tests and seven anamnestic questions were included in the final set of screening items for the digital neurological examination. Three tests and five anamnestic questions were excluded from the final selection due to their low ratings on feasibility.
conclusionThis work identifies the key feasible and acceptable screening tests and anamnestic questions to build an electronic tool for performing the neurological examination, in the absence of a neurologist.
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.