ArticleBMC neurology2025
The validity of computerized Montreal cognitive assessment among aging people living with HIV: A pilot study.
Article in BMC neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Frailty Transition Among Older Adults Living With HIV in Thailand: A 5-Year Longitudinal Study.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2026Observational
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
backgroundAs the population of aging people living with HIV (PWH) increases, many have faced neurocognitive problems. Cognitive assessment plays a crucial role as the initial step in cognitive care of this specific population. We aimed to determine the validity between a traditional paper-based and tablet-based cognitive assessment tool among aging Thai PWH.
methodsPWH aged ≥ 50 years underwent cognitive assessment using the Thai-validated Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Participants were randomly assigned to receive either the paper-based MoCA or the tablet-based MoCA (eMoCA) first. Two weeks later, participants returned to complete the alternate version of the MoCA. Pearson correlation was used to determine the strength of the relationship between the paper-based MoCA and the eMoCA scores. Concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) were calculated, and a Bland-Altman plot was employed to determine the level of agreement between the two testing methods. Additionally, MoCA scores were compared between individuals with and without prior touchscreen tablet experience.
resultsAmong 46 participants included in the analysis, 12 (26.1%) had experience using a touchscreen tablet. The score discrepancy between the two MoCA versions ranged from - 8 to 6, with a mean (SD) difference of -1.33 (3.22). The Pearson correlation coefficient between the paper-based MoCA and the eMoCA was r = 0.54 (p = 0.001), with a concordance correlation coefficient of 0.47. The Bland-Altman plot showed 95% limits of agreement between - 7.63 and 4.98. Among participants with prior touchscreen tablet experience, scores between the paper-based MoCA and the eMoCA were comparable. However, those without prior touchscreen experience had significantly lower scores on the eMoCA compared to the paper-based MoCA (mean difference - 1.56, 95% CI -2.72 to -0.40).
conclusionsThe eMoCA demonstrated moderate correlation with the paper-based MoCA, with prior touchscreen tablet experience significantly affecting the validity of the MoCA scores between the two versions. Clinicians should consider individuals' level of touchscreen experience before selecting the administration modality.
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.