ArticleEuropean stroke journal2026
The limited diagnostic and prognostic utility of brief cognitive screening tools in acute stroke.
Article in European stroke journal, 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
introductionGuidelines recommend cognitive screening post-stroke, but there is no consensus on approach. Given the dynamic nature of cognition following stroke, acute screening should both detect prevalent issues (diagnosis) and predict persisting problems (prognosis). We describe the diagnostic and prognostic utility of brief cognitive screening tools. PATIENTS AND
methodsPatients were screened on admission with stroke using 12 modified screening tests: 10 and 4 question Abbreviated Mental Test, Cog-4, Clock Drawing test (CDT), Cognitive Impairment Test, informal bedside assessment, General Practitioner Assessment of Cognition, Minicog, Short Form Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Six-Item Screener (SIS), Harmonised Vascular Cognitive Impairment battery and 4-A's Test. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value were calculated against a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition adjudicated reference standard of neurocognitive disorders. Test accuracy was compared using area under the receiver operator characteristic curves.
resultsOf 335 patients, 54 (16.1%) had pre-stroke neurocognitive disorder, 79 (23.6%) had 18-month neurocognitive disorder. Ten of 12 screening tests were more specific than sensitive. Informal bedside assessment had highest specificity (96%), but low sensitivity (9%); CDT had highest sensitivity (80%) but low specificity (33%). Negative predictive value ranged from 77% to 87%, PPV ranged from 27% to 54%. Area under the receiver operator characteristic curve ranged 0.53 (informal bedside assessment) to 0.69 (SIS). DISCUSSION: In the acute setting, where the intention of screening is often to triage those who need further assessment, the pattern of high specificity at the expense of sensitivity is the opposite of what is desired.
conclusionBrief cognitive screening tools, used in isolation, may not be suitable for assessment in acute stroke settings.
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.