ArticleCureus2025
Analysis of the A-B Neuropsychological Assessment Schedule as a Cognitive Screener for Long COVID.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim To determine the sensitivity and specificity of the psychometric measures of the A-B Neuropsychological Assessment Schedule (ABNAS) to aid screening of long COVID (LC). Methods The participants (N=235) were recruited from an online study of cognitive and psychological consequences of LC, involving individuals attending an LC service in an acute tertiary university hospital and a comparison sample of community controls.The ABNAS for LC, a patient-perceived assessment scale in relation to the challenges they had encountered from LC, was used to identify the specific psychometric measures implicated in LC. Results The optimal cut-off value for total ABNAS scores and its psychometric subsets were obtained from receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The sensitivity of the total ABNAS score of ≥21.5 was 81.6% for LC, taken as a post-COVID functional status (PCFS)grade of ≥ 2 as true positives, with a specificity = 72.3%. The specificity of the ABNAS fatigue subscale score of ≥ 8.5 for LC was 87.2%, while its sensitivity was 66.7%. The sensitivity of the ABNAS mental slowing subscale score of ≥ 4.5 was 82.8%, and the specificity was 70.3%. Conclusion Total ABNAS scores and their psychometric subsets (fatigue and mental slowing) are sensitive and specific for LC.
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.