This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

48/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Cognitive tests and assessment

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Plain-language summary

Introduction Recent evidence has implicated the precuneus of the medial parietal lobe as one of the first brain areas to show pathological changes in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Damage to the precuneus through focal brain injury is associated with impaired visually guided reaching, particularly for objects in peripheral vision. This raises the hypothesis that peripheral misreaching may be detectable in patients with prodromal AD. The aim of this study is to assess the frequency and severity of peripheral misreaching in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and AD. Methods and analysis Patients presenting with amnestic MCI, mild-to-moderate AD and healthy older-adult controls will be tested (target N=24 per group). Peripheral misreaching will be assessed using two set-ups: a tablet-based task of lateral reaching and motion-tracked radial reaching (in depth). There are two versions of each task, one where participants can look directly at targets (free reaching), another wheren they must maintain central fixation (peripheral reaching). All tasks will be conducted first on their dominant, and then their non-dominant side. For each combination of task and side, a Peripheral Misreaching Index (PMI) will be calculated as the increase in absolute reaching error between free and peripheral reaching. Each patient will be classified as showing peripheral misreaching if their PMI is significantly abnormal, by comparison to control performance, on either side of space. We will then test whether the frequency of peripheral misreaching exceeds the chance level in each patient group and compare the overall severity of misreaching between groups. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was provided by the National Health Service (NHS) East of England, Cambridge Central Research Ethics Committee (REC 19/EE/0170). The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at academic conferences.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Mitchell, A. G., McIntosh, R. D., Rossit, S., Hornberger, M., & Pal, S. (2020). Assessment of visually guided reaching in prodromal Alzheimer's disease: a cross-sectional study protocol. BMJ open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035021

Vancouver

Mitchell AG, McIntosh RD, Rossit S, Hornberger M, Pal S. Assessment of visually guided reaching in prodromal Alzheimer's disease: a cross-sectional study protocol. BMJ open. 2020. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035021. PMID: 32503870.

BibTeX

@article{mitchell2020-32503870,
  author  = {Mitchell, A. G. and McIntosh, R. D. and Rossit, S. and Hornberger, M. and Pal, S.},
  title   = {{Assessment of visually guided reaching in prodromal Alzheimer's disease: a cross-sectional study protocol}},
  journal = {BMJ open},
  year    = {2020},
  doi     = {10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035021},
  pmid    = {32503870},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035021}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
Size: the record lists 24 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Damage to the precuneus through focal brain injury is associated with impaired visually guided reaching, particularly for objects in peripheral vision.
Each patient will be classified as showing peripheral misreaching if their PMI is significantly abnormal, by comparison to control performance, on either side of space.
We will then test whether the frequency of peripheral misreaching exceeds the chance level in each patient group and compare the overall severity of misreaching between groups.
The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at academic conferences.

Study details

Participants24
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 48/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomized / 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (BMJ open)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	0 / 12	No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (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	1 / 4	24 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)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization 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
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 32503870)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	28 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100.
Total	48 / 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.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment from nearby years

Also tagged “prodromal”

2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prodromal”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Cognitive tests and assessment

See all studies in Cognitive tests and assessment →