ArticleJournal of neurology2024
Evaluation of a self-administered iPad
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.
- Review
- Plateau of practice effects and noise with repeat SDMT testing in multiple sclerosis.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLimited resources often hinder regular cognitive assessment of people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) in standard clinical care. A self-administered iPad®-based cognitive screening-tool (Processing Speed Test; PST) might mitigate this problem.
objectiveTo evaluate the PST in clinical routine.
methodsWe investigated the feasibility of the PST in both a quiet and a waiting room setting. We assessed the validity of the PST in comparison with the established Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT). We explored associations between processing speed assessments and the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for MS (BICAMS), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) parameters, and psychological factors. Additionally, we explored the ability of the PST to detect impairment in processing speed compared to the SDMT.
resultsThe PST was feasible in the waiting room setting. PST and SDMT correlated comparably with the BICAMS, MRI parameters, and psychological variables. Of 172 pwMS, 50 (30.8%) showed cognitive impairment according to the BICAMS; respective values were 47 (27.3%) for the SDMT and 9 (5.2%) for the PST.
conclusionsThe PST performed in a waiting room setting correlates strongly with established cognitive tests. It thus may be used to assess processing speed in a resource-efficient manner and complement cognitive assessment in clinical routine. Despite comparable validity of the PST and SDMT, we identified more pwMS with impaired processing speed using normative data of the SDMT compared to the PST and advise caution, that the common cut-off score of - 1.5 SD from the current PST is not appropriate in Europe.
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.