ReviewNeuropsychology review2025
Memory Test Performance of People with Subjective Cognitive Decline Recruited From Different Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in Neuropsychology review, 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.
- Development and Validation of a Predictive Model for Identification of Cognitive Impairment Risk in Older Adults with Subjective Cognitive Decline：A Longitudinal Study.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) is defined as self-experienced cognitive decline without objective impairment on standardised tests. Research suggests SCD may show subtle impairment on detailed neuropsychological assessment and might therefore indicate the earliest stage of neurodegeneration. This review (PROSPERO: CRD42023382096) seeks to determine whether group differences in memory task performance between people with and without SCD exist. The review included studies since 2014 comparing episodic memory performance between people with and without SCD; where people with SCD were recruited exclusively from community or medical settings. Studies providing data for people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) were included in a separate meta-analysis comparing SCD and MCI. A systematic search was conducted (PsycINFO, Web of Science, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed on 11th August 2023). Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. 1,815 records were identified, of which 45 met inclusion criteria and were included in a random-effects meta-analysis (SCD N = 5,948, Non-SCD N = 8,468). Twenty-one studies additionally provided data for an MCI group (SCD N = 1,034, MCI N = 2,119). Results indicated people with SCD performed significantly worse than people without SCD (Hedges' g = -0.19, 95% CI = -0.26, -0.11) and significantly better than MCI participants (Hedges' g = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.94, 1.46). For both meta-analyses there was significant between-study heterogeneity. There was a significant risk of publication bias for the meta-analysis comparing SCD to Non-SCD. These results suggest detailed memory assessment may be sensitive to reduced objective memory performance in SCD. However, it is unclear whether the small effect size has clinical significance. Higher quality and larger studies are needed to rule out the influence of moderating factors on memory performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41455054What 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.