ArticleBMC psychiatry2025
Reliability, validity, and diagnostic accuracy of the apathy evaluation scale in chronic stroke survivors.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2025. 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.
- Beyond cognition in post-stroke cognitive impairment: neuropsychiatric symptoms and stroke-specific cognitive screening.Cerebral circulation - cognition and behavior · 2026Article
- Validation of the dimensional apathy scale and predictors of apathy in stroke survivors.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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to determine the psychometric properties of the Apathy Evaluation Scale (AES) in chronic stroke survivors.
methodsIn this study, 112 non-cognitive impairment stroke survivors participated. Acceptability, inter-rater, and test-retest reliability of the three Persian versions of AES (clinician, informant, and self-rated) were evaluated. The correlation of three AES versions with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Modified Rankin Scale (mRS), and Barthel Index (BI) was evaluated. To assess the diagnostic accuracy of the three AES versions, stroke survivors were classified as apathetic (n = 43) and non-apathetic (n = 69) groups using the 'diagnostic criteria of apathy'.
resultsThe floor and ceiling effect, skewness, and kurtosis were within acceptable range for three AES versions. Internal consistency (α = 0.88-0.91) and test-retest and inter-rater reliability (ICC
conclusionAll three AES versions are reliable and valid screening tools to evaluate and characterize apathy in stroke survivors. The AES-self-rated had good discriminative validity for discriminating apathetic from non-apathetic subjects in non-cognitive impairment stroke survivors.
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.