ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2026
The clock drawing test as a screening tool for detecting cognitive decline: an analysis in adults and elderly people from Natal (RN).
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The Clock Drawing Test (CDT) is widely used as a screening instrument for cognitive decline due to its simplicity and rapid administration. Despite its widespread clinical use, evidence regarding its diagnostic performance in the Brazilian Northeast region remains scarce. Methods: This study examined CDT performance in a clinical sample of 113 adults and older adults assessed at a neuropsychology service in Northeastern Brazil, focusing on CDT ability to identify cognitive decline and the effects of age, educational level, and clinical diagnoses. The study tested the following hypotheses: (1) there is a significant association between age and CDT scores; (2) there are significant differences in CDT scores across different educational levels; (3) there are significant differences in CDT scores across different clinical conditions, indicating potential for differential diagnosis; and (4) the test would demonstrate high sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy in the overall sample, as well as high sensitivity in detecting each diagnostic condition. Using Shulman's scoring method, descriptive analyses, Spearman's correlation, Kruskal-Wallis tests and metrics of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were conducted. Results: The sample had a mean age of 65.19 years and was predominantly characterized by low educational attainment. A negative, albeit weak, correlation was observed between age and CDT scores, as well as significant differences across educational levels. Diagnostic group comparisons also revealed significant differences, most notably between cognitively unimpaired individuals and patients diagnosed with Major Neurocognitive Disorder due to Alzheimer's disease. Although the CDT demonstrated adequate specificity, its overall sensitivity and accuracy were low. Sensitivity was high for Major Neurocognitive Disorder Due to Alzheimer's Disease, moderate for Major Neurocognitive Disorder due to Non-Alzheimer's Disease (Major Vascular Neurocognitive Disorder, Parkinson's Disease, Mixed Dementia, Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome and Major Frontotemporal Neurocognitive Disorder) and low for Mild Neurocognitive Disorder. Discussion: These findings demonstrate that Shulman's method of CDT is not suitable for assessing cognitive decline in the illiterate and low-education population and raise important concerns regarding its standalone clinical utility, especially in specific neurological conditions. The present study underscores the need for future research employing alternative scoring methods and more representative samples to refine the applicability and diagnostic value of the CDT in clinical practice.
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.