ArticleResearch square2026
Development and Validation of a Brief Digital Cognitive Screening Tool for HIV-associated Neurocognitive Disorder in Lima, Peru.
Article in Research square, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder (HAND) remains a frequent yet under-recognized complication among people with HIV (PWH), even while on antiretroviral therapy. In Peru, feasible and accurate brief cognitive tools are needed for underserved clinical settings. Methods: We recruited Spanish-speaking adults with and without HIV in Lima, Peru. Eleven TabCAT tests were evaluated in a development sample, with demographic norms derived from adults without HIV. A four-test battery with an estimated administration time of 14 minutes was evaluated against a comprehensive paper-and-pencil reference battery in an additional sample of PWH. Concurrent validity was examined using correlations between cognitive tests in the same domain. Results: Participants included 293 PWH (29.0% female; age [mean ± SD] 47.2 ± 11.8 years; education 12.8 ± 2.7 years) and 162 HIV-negative healthy adults (53.1% female; age 46.5 ± 14.2 years; education 13.6 ± 2.7 years). The four-test battery comprised Birdwatch, Match, Set Shifting, and Rapid Naming. Its area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.797 (95% CI: 0.691, 0.903; n = 115) in development and 0.819 (95% CI: 0.740, 0.899; n = 150) in validation samples. Validation sensitivity was 81.6% and specificity was 70.5%. Digital tests exhibited domain-specific moderate correlations with reference paper-and-pencil tests demonstrating concurrent validity. Conclusions: This brief battery shows promise for cognitive screening among literate, Spanish-speaking PWH in urban Peru. However, it does not establish a clinical HAND diagnosis. Further evaluation of interpretation thresholds, lower literacy levels and rural populations, and referral pathways is needed before routine implementation of this tool.
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.