Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39764128›Full record

ArticleResearch square2024

A study evaluation framework for measuring cognition. Lessons learned in cross-national contexts from four English-speaking aging cohorts.

Shabina Hayat, Sarah Assaad, Carol Brayne, Nasrin Ahmed, Andrew Steptoe

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in Research square, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Shabina HayatUniversity College London.
Sarah AssaadUniversity College London.
Carol BrayneUniversity of Cambridge.
Nasrin AhmedAnglia Ruskin University - Chelmsford Campus: Anglia Ruskin University.
Andrew SteptoeUCL: University College London.

Funding

Project-001R01AG017644 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF LONDON INST OF NEUROLOGY · PI Andrew Steptoe · 2000 to 2026
$56.2M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG017644
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Harmonized Cognitive Assessment Protocol (HCAP) is a detailed battery assessing cognition among older people used by studies across the world. Data harmonization is a key priority for HCAP studies. We used a mixed-methods approach using established theories from the existing literature detailing the methodologies of longitudinal studies and from the implementation of HCAP in four English-speaking studies adopting the same protocol. Through a detailed investigation involving the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA), the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (TILDA), and the Northern Ireland Cohort for the Longitudinal Study of Ageing (NICOLA), we identified 60 factors contributing to the development of a conceptual framework for the evaluation and implementation of HCAP. We present this framework and a prototype checklist as a tool for providing a transparent and structured approach to improve data quality, cross-country comparability and for identifying, mitigating, and monitoring sources of bias. The framework consisting of four broad headings: (1) Organisation and design, (2) Competency of personnel and systems, (3) Implementation and outputs, and (4) Feedback and communication. Studies seeking to harmonize results in cross-national contexts should give operational aspects of fieldwork careful consideration as part of the harmonization process.

Identifiers

PMID39764128
PMCPMC11702860

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.