Home › Research › Risk factors
A case of comorbidities highlighting cerebral stroke, vision impairment, and dementia
Kimberly Hreha, Praveena Gupta, Timothy Reistetter. SAGE open medical case reports, 2020-11-24
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
This case report is of a two-time stroke survivor with significant health comorbidities. This report highlights A.R.'s pre-existing, non-neurological vision impairments, stroke-related vision impairments, in addition to cognitive impairment and possible dementia. Information including her past medical history, current functional status, and battery of assessments that were used in the acute care hospital are detailed. Conclusions include the need for comprehensive, valid, and adapted assessments especially when comorbidities are present. We suggest that cognitive assessments that do not rely on vision may have improved the test accuracy in this case.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Hreha, K., Gupta, P., & Reistetter, T. (2020). A case of comorbidities highlighting cerebral stroke, vision impairment, and dementia. SAGE open medical case reports. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050313x20975246
Vancouver
Hreha K, Gupta P, Reistetter T. A case of comorbidities highlighting cerebral stroke, vision impairment, and dementia. SAGE open medical case reports. 2020. doi:10.1177/2050313x20975246. PMID: 33282313.
BibTeX
@article{hreha2020-33282313,
author = {Hreha, Kimberly and Gupta, Praveena and Reistetter, Timothy},
title = {{A case of comorbidities highlighting cerebral stroke, vision impairment, and dementia}},
journal = {SAGE open medical case reports},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.1177/2050313x20975246},
pmid = {33282313},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/2050313x20975246}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- This case report is of a two-time stroke survivor with significant health comorbidities.
- We suggest that cognitive assessments that do not rely on vision may have improved the test accuracy in this case.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Study designcase report
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 45/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 25 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (SAGE open medical case reports) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | Design recorded as “case report”, which our rubric does not rank (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study) |
| 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 33282313) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 25 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100. |
| Total | 45 / 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 Risk factors
Also in Risk factors
356 studies in the library are filed under Risk factors with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Risk factors hub.