ArticleDigital health
User experience evaluation of Cogscreen for screening mild cognitive impairment: Formative and summative evaluation.
Article in Digital health. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is an early stage of cognitive decline and a key risk factor for dementia. Early detection is essential for timely intervention and prevention, so various digital screening tools have been developed recently. However, many of these tools have limitations. Without assistance, users may have difficulty completing the tests, which could result in increased failure rates and reduced accuracy. This study evaluates the usability of Cogscreen, a mobile cognitive screening tool that can be completed independently from start to finish. Methods: A two-step usability evaluation was conducted: a formative evaluation with 5 physiatrists assessing design clarity and usability issues, and a summative evaluation with 15 participants analyzing task completion rates and System Usability Scale (SUS) scores. Results: The formative evaluation identified strengths in interface design and overall usability, while also noting areas for refinement. The summative evaluation showed a 97% task completion rate and an average SUS score of 80.2, indicating strong usability. Minor issues were reported in personal information entry and graphical result interpretation. Conclusions: Cogscreen demonstrated high usability as a digital screening tool for MCI, underscoring its promise for supporting early detection of cognitive decline. Future refinements should focus on enhancing error handling and improving demographic guidance. Expanding testing across diverse populations could further validate its potential clinical utility.
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.