ArticleBMC neurology2026
Diagnostic accuracy of drawing tests and their combinations for post-stroke cognitive impairment in patients with lower education.
Article in BMC neurology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPost-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) is highly prevalent among ischemic stroke patients in China, a population who received less education compared to Western counterparts. Commonly used cognitive assessments often affected by educational levels. Drawing tests may mitigate educational bias, but the diagnostic accuracy of combined drawing tests remains understudied and unclear.
methodsThe diagnostic accuracy of the Cube Copying Test (CCT), Clock Drawing Test (CDT), and Pentagon Copying Test (PCT), and their various combinations was evaluated against the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) as the reference standard. Ischemic stroke patients at a hospital in Chongqing, China, were enrolled between January 2022 and June 2025. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the area under the curve (AUC) were used to assess diagnostic accuracy.
resultsAmong 413 participants, 260 were in the acute phase (mean age was 64.3 years, and 47.7% had primary education) and 153 in the convalescent phase (mean age was 64.7 years, and 33.3% had primary education). PSCI was identified in 61.2% and 60.8% of acute and convalescent patients, respectively. Among individual tests, the CDT showed the highest AUC in both phases (acute: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.78, 0.88; convalescent: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.72, 0.86). For test combinations, the full battery (CCT + CDT+PCT) achieved the highest AUC in the acute phase (0.85, 95% CI: 0.80, 0.90), with a sensitivity of 80.5% (95% CI: 73.3%, 86.2%) and a specificity of 83.2% (95% CI: 74.1%, 90.0%); while the CCT + CDT combination performed the best in the convalescent phase (0.82, 95% CI: 0.75, 0.88), with a sensitivity of 78.5% (95% CI: 68.5%, 86.1%) and a specificity of 71.7% (95% CI: 58.4%, 82.2%). These two combinations exhibited AUC > 0.8 across sex and age subgroups. In acute patients, the full battery showed better AUC in those with primary (0.88, 95% CI: 0.80, 0.97) and secondary education (0.84, 95% CI: 0.76, 0.92) compared to higher education (0.74, 95% CI: 0.57, 0.90). This educational gradient was less evident in convalescent patients (primary school: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.52, 0.93; secondary school: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.75, 0.92; ≥university: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.42, 0.88).
conclusionCombined drawing tests demonstrate good diagnostic accuracy for PSCI, with their de-linguistic design reducing educational bias, particularly in acute patients. The CCT + CDT+PCT combination is recommended for acute-phase PSCI screening, while CCT + CDT may suffice during convalescence. These findings suggest that combined drawing tests may offer practical tools for rapid PSCI screening in stroke patients with lower education.
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.