Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

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.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Clinical safety

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Bedside cognitive screening instruments are used increasingly in clinical and research settings to detect cognitive impairment and to quantify its severity. The authors review the five most frequently cited bedside screening tests that use an interview format and require brief administration times: the Mini-Mental State Examination, the Cognitive Capacity Screening Examination, Mattis Dementia Rating Scale, Kahn's Mental Status Questionnaire, and the Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire. The tests all have adequate inter-rater reliability, and adequate test-retest reliability has been established for three of the tests. All of the tests show close correspondence with clinical diagnoses of delirium and dementia and are useful for the diagnosis and quantification of these syndromes. However, there is currently no evidence that the tests increase the level of diagnostic accuracy achieved through clinical examination alone. All of the tests have substantial false-negative rates, with false-negative errors frequent among patients with focal lesions, particularly of the right hemisphere. False-positive errors may be more common among patients with less education and lower socioeconomic status. The tests reviewed do not detect many types of cognitive deficit that may bear critically on differential diagnosis and case management. Suggestions are given for further research on the current measures and for the development of new screening tests that would meet a broader range of clinical purposes.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 36/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 21 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 36 of 100. Total 36 of 100.21 of the 58 points we could judge = 36 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The Journal of nervous and mental disease)
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 1 / 5 1986 — older than 20 years, still counted
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 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
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 3944597)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 21 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100.
Total 36 / 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.

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

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.

APA 7th

Nelson, A., Fogel, B. S., & Faust, D. (1986). Bedside cognitive screening instruments. A critical assessment. The Journal of nervous and mental disease. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-198602000-00002

Vancouver

Nelson A, Fogel BS, Faust D. Bedside cognitive screening instruments. A critical assessment. The Journal of nervous and mental disease. 1986. doi:10.1097/00005053-198602000-00002. PMID: 3944597.

BibTeX

@article{nelson1986-3944597,
  author  = {Nelson, A. and Fogel, B. S. and Faust, D.},
  title   = {{Bedside cognitive screening instruments. A critical assessment}},
  journal = {The Journal of nervous and mental disease},
  year    = {1986},
  doi     = {10.1097/00005053-198602000-00002},
  pmid    = {3944597},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-198602000-00002}
}

Related studies in Clinical safety

Similar studies

More on Clinical safety

See all studies in Clinical safety →