SynthesisAging and disease2025
Neuropsychological Diagnostic Tools in Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Aging and disease, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Due to baseline differences in cognitive test performance and their variable capacity to predict progression from Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer's disease (AD), this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify the most frequently used neuropsychological tests and their predictive value. Given the high prevalence of MCI, identifying accurate diagnostic tools is crucial. This study examined cognitive test differences between MCI patients and healthy individuals in clinical studies. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to account for variability. To this end, a comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane databases. Of the 103 studies that met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed, 34 were excluded from the meta-analysis due to the absence of control groups, and 7 articles were excluded because there were not enough comparable studies to perform a meaningful analysis. The meta-analysis revealed significant cognitive impairment in global cognition, language, and emotional well-being. Some studies reported hippocampal atrophy and amyloid-β/tau deposition in MCI patients progressing to AD, while others found benefits from physical and cognitive training. These findings highlight the need for standardized cognitive assessments to identify MCI patients at risk of AD conversion and implement effective treatments. Nevertheless, this meta-analysis faced limitations due to missing patient data, including the MCI subtype and disease duration.
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.