Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
A Brief Digital Cognitive Assessment for Detection of Cognitive Impairment in Cuban Older Adults
Rodríguez-Salgado AM, Llibre-Guerra JJ, Tsoy E, Peñalver-Guia AI, Bringas G, Erlhoff SJ, Kramer JH, Allen IE et al.. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2021-01-01
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Background Rapid technological advances offer a possibility to develop cost-effective digital cognitive assessment tools. However, it is unclear whether these measures are suitable for application in populations from Low and middle-income countries (LMIC). Objective To examine the accuracy and validity of the Brain Health Assessment (BHA) in detecting cognitive impairment in a Cuban population. Methods In this cross-sectional study, 146 participants (cognitively healthy = 53, mild cognitive impairment (MCI) = 46, dementia = 47) were recruited at primary care and tertiary clinics. The main outcomes included: accuracy of the BHA and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in discriminating between controls and cognitively impaired groups (MCI and dementia) and correlations between the BHA subtests of memory, executive functions, and visuospatial skills and criterion-standard paper-and-pencil tests in the same domains. Results The BHA had an AUC of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.91-0.98) in discriminating between controls and cognitively impaired groups (MCI and dementia, combined) with 0.91 sensitivity at 0.85 specificity. In discriminating between control and MCI groups only, the BHA tests had an AUC of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.90-0.99) with 0.71 sensitivity at 0.85 specificity. Performance was superior to the MoCA across all diagnostic groups. Concurrent and discriminant validity analyses showed moderate to strong correlations between the BHA tests and standard paper-and-pencil measures in the same domain and weak correlations with standard measures in unrelated domains. Conclusion The BHA has excellent performance characteristics in detecting cognitive impairment including dementia and MCI in a Hispanic population in Cuba and outperformed the MoCA. These results support potential application of digital cognitive assessment for older adults in LMIC.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Rodríguez-Salgado, A. M., Llibre-Guerra, J. J., Tsoy, E., Peñalver-Guia, A. I., Bringas, G., Erlhoff, S. J., et al. (2021). A Brief Digital Cognitive Assessment for Detection of Cognitive Impairment in Cuban Older Adults. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-200985
Vancouver
Rodríguez-Salgado AM, Llibre-Guerra JJ, Tsoy E, Peñalver-Guia AI, Bringas G, Erlhoff SJ, et al. A Brief Digital Cognitive Assessment for Detection of Cognitive Impairment in Cuban Older Adults. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2021. doi:10.3233/jad-200985. PMID: 33216033.
BibTeX
@article{rodriguezsalgado2021-33216033,
author = {Rodríguez-Salgado, A. M. and Llibre-Guerra, J. J. and Tsoy, E. and Peñalver-Guia, A. I. and Bringas, G. and Erlhoff, S. J. and Kramer, J. H. and Allen, I. E. and others},
title = {{A Brief Digital Cognitive Assessment for Detection of Cognitive Impairment in Cuban Older Adults}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.3233/jad-200985},
pmid = {33216033},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-200985}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results The BHA had an AUC of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.91-0.98) in discriminating between controls and cognitively impaired groups (MCI and dementia, combined) with 0.91 sensitivity at 0.85 specificity.
- These results support potential application of digital cognitive assessment for older adults in LMIC.
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Participants146
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 55/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 32 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 55 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 4 / 12 | A snapshot of people at one point in time |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 146 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 33216033) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 32 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 32 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 55 out of 100. |
| Total | 55 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “computerized”
238 studies in the library carry the topic tag “computerized”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 238 tagged studies.