ArticleMedical sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Evaluating the Acceptability and Pilot Diagnostic Accuracy of a Visually Independent Test Battery of Neurocognition (VISION-Cog).
Article in Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCognitive impairment (CI) may be overdiagnosed in individuals with vision impairment (VI) due to the vision-dependent design of current cognitive assessment tools. This cross-sectional study evaluated the acceptability and diagnostic accuracy (pilot) of the Visually Independent Test Battery of Neurocognition (VISION-Cog) protocol, against gold-standard neurologist diagnosis.
methodsCommunity-dwelling older adults with near binocular presenting VI (near visual acuity [NVA] ≥ 0.2 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [LogMAR] units) were recruited from the Population Health and Eye Disease Profile in Elderly Singaporeans (PIONEER) study. Participants underwent VISION-Cog and the Singapore-validated Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-SG) testing and were referred for neurologist evaluation based on standardized referral protocols. The acceptability of the VISION-Cog was assessed through study completion rates, test duration, and the qualitative feedback. Vision-Cog's diagnostic accuracy (pilot) against neurologist evaluation was analyzed using binary logistic regression and C-statistics to estimate area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) with corresponding sensitivity and specificity.
resultsOut of forty-five participants (mean age [SD]: 73.8 [6.1 years]; mean NVA [SD]: 0.47 [0.14] LogMAR; and 54.1% female), 37 (82.2%) completed the protocol. The mean VISION-Cog completion time [SD] was 59 m 57 s (7 m 18 s). Qualitatively, participants found the testing time acceptable. The VISION-Cog achieved an AUC of 0.930 against neurologist diagnosis, with 100.0% sensitivity and 78.0% specificity.
conclusionsThe VISION-Cog demonstrated satisfactory preliminary diagnostic accuracy and good acceptability indices in older Asian adults, supporting the need of larger studies to confirm its diagnostic accuracy of CI and clinical utility in those with VI.
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.