ArticleScientific reports2024
Digital symbol-digit modalities test with modified flexible protocols in patients with CNS demyelinating diseases.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
- Distinct prognostic implications of blood neuronal and astroglial biomarkers in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders versus multiple sclerosis.Scientific reports · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cognitive impairment (CI) is prevalent in central nervous system demyelinating diseases, such as multiple sclerosis (MS) and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD). We developed a novel tablet-based modified digital Symbol Digit Modalities Test (MD-SDMT) with adjustable protocols that feature alternating symbol-digit combinations in each trial, lasting one or two minutes. We assessed 144 patients (99 with MS and 45 with NMOSD) using both MD-SDMT protocols and the traditional paper-based SDMT. We also gathered participants' feedback through a questionnaire regarding their preferences and perceived reliability. The results showed strong correlations between MD-SDMT and paper-based SDMT scores (Pearsons correlation: 0.88 for 2 min; 0.85 for 1 min, both p < 0.001). Among the 120 respondents, the majority preferred the digitalized SDMT (55% for the 2 min, 39% for the 1 min) over the paper-based version (6%), with the 2 min MD-SDMT reported as the most reliable test. Notably, patients with NMOSD and older individuals exhibited a preference for the paper-based test, as compared to those with MS and younger patients. In summary, even with short test durations, the digitalized SDMT effectively evaluates cognitive function in MS and NMOSD patients, and is generally preferred over the paper-based method, although preferences may vary with patient characteristics.
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.