ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
Perspectives on the measurement of self-perceived cognitive function in older adults.
Article in Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 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.
- A world view: Considerations of sociocultural diversity in the study of subjective cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Review
- Perspectives on the measurement of self-perceived cognitive function in older adults.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis survey investigated perspectives of research and clinical professionals on optimal content and features of measurement of self-perceived cognitive functioning.
methodsRespondents were professionals working with older adults with self-reported cognitive concerns. The survey addressed views on harmonization and preferences for items, response formatting, practical features, and instrument validation. We evaluated item preferences in consideration of a previous statistical harmonization.
resultsNinety professionals from 20 different countries completed the survey. Most professionals (87%) indicated a need for a harmonized instrument. Respondents agreed that an instrument should measure current ability alongside change therein, focus on memory, and adopt Likert scale responses. Recommendations for assessment timeframe, practical features, and validation priorities varied. Respondents differentially endorsed items previously found to be statistically informative. DISCUSSION: Respondents agreed on overarching measurement topics, with varying recommendations for specific content and features. Together with statistical information, these results provide a starting point for a harmonized instrument. Highlights: Professionals see a need for a harmonized tool to measure cognitive concerns.Professionals have diverse preferences for measurement content and its validation.Item relevance as seen by professionals aligned considerably with statistical value.Integration of statistical information with expert and patient opinion is crucial.
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.