ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2024
Utilising accessible and reproducible neurological assessments in clinical studies: Insights from use of the Neurological Impairment Scale in the multi-centre COVID-CNS study.
Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reproducible and standardised neurological assessment scales are important in quantifying research outcomes. These scales are often performed by non-neurologists and/or non-clinicians and must be robust, quantifiable, reproducible and comparable to a neurologist's assessment. COVID-CNS is a multi-centre study which utilised the Neurological Impairment Scale (NIS) as a core assessment tool in studying neurological outcomes following COVID-19 infection. We investigated the strengths and weaknesses of the NIS when used by non-neurology clinicians and non-clinicians, and compared performance to a structured neurological examination performed by a neurology clinician. Through our findings, we provide practical advice on how non-clinicians can be readily trained in conducting reproducible and standardised neurological assessments in a multi-centre study, as well as illustrating potential pitfalls of these tools.
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.