Trial reportPublic health2025
Cost-effectiveness of 5-Cog paradigm for individuals with cognitive concerns in primary care.
Trial report in Public health, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveIn a recent randomized clinical trial (RCT), the 5-Cog paradigm showed efficacy in detecting cognitive impairment while also increasing the frequency of relevant care actions. We sought to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the 5-Cog paradigm for dementia screening and management in primary care patients. STUDY
designRCT conducted in a primary care clinic from May 2019 to September 2022. The patients were either assigned to the control or 5-Cog intervention.
methodsFinancial records for health services were obtained from electronic medical records. The primary measure of efficacy was improved dementia care actions. Cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted for both encounter-related and procedure-related costs only related to 5-Cog testing and further related care. Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs) were calculated using a cost per diagnosis ratio relative to an active control arm.
resultsA total of 1106 participants (92.8 % of study participants) were included in the analysis (mean age 72.8 years). 5-Cog participants were more likely to receive 'improved dementia care': MCI/dementia diagnosis (aOR = 19.53, p = 0.020), MRI/CT brain imaging (aOR = 29.37, p = 0.001), memory related lab orders (aOR = 43.85, p = 0.002), and specialty or community-based referrals (aOR = 4.23, p = 0.049). Total aggregated expenditures for 5-Cog patients were higher (aOR = 2.24, p < 0.001). ICERs for total aggregate costs, encounter-related costs, and procedure-related costs were $306, $212, and $94, respectively.
conclusionsThe results suggest that the 5-Cog paradigm is a cost-effective option for cognitive impairment screening in primary care. In concert with the original work supporting the efficacy of 5-Cog, this work further supports the candidacy of 5-Cog as a universal dementia screening tool.
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.