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.

66/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Cognitive tests and assessment

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

The study of cognition in Parkinson's disease (PD) traditionally requires exhaustive recruitment strategies. The current study examines data collected by the Brain Health Registry (BHR) to determine whether ongoing efforts to improve the recruitment base for therapeutic trials in Alzheimer's disease may be similarly effective for PD research, and whether online cognitive measurements can discriminate between participants who do and do not report a PD diagnosis. Participants enrolled in the BHR (age ≥50) with self-reported PD data and online cognitive testing available were included (n = 11,813). Associations between baseline cognitive variables and diagnostic group were analyzed using logistic regression. Linear mixed effects models were used to analyze longitudinal data. A total of 634 participants reported PD diagnosis at baseline with no self-reported cognitive impairment and completed cognitive testing. Measures of visual learning and memory, processing speed, attention, and working memory discriminated between self-reported PD and non-PD participants after correcting for multiple comparisons (p values < 0.006). Scores on all cognitive tests improved over time in PD and controls with the exception of processing speed, which remained stable in participants with PD while improving in those without. We demonstrate that a novel online approach to recruitment and longitudinal follow-up of study participants is effective for those with self-reported PD, and that significant differences exist between those with and without a reported diagnosis of PD on computerized cognitive measures. These results have important implications for recruitment of participants with PD into targeted therapeutic trials or large-scale genetic and cognitive studies.

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

APA 7th

Cholerton, B., Weiner, M. W., Nosheny, R. L., Poston, K. L., Mackin, R. S., Tian, L., et al. (2019). Cognitive Performance in Parkinson's Disease in the Brain Health Registry. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-181009

Vancouver

Cholerton B, Weiner MW, Nosheny RL, Poston KL, Mackin RS, Tian L, et al. Cognitive Performance in Parkinson's Disease in the Brain Health Registry. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2019. doi:10.3233/jad-181009. PMID: 30909225.

BibTeX

@article{cholerton2019-30909225,
  author  = {Cholerton, B. and Weiner, M. W. and Nosheny, R. L. and Poston, K. L. and Mackin, R. S. and Tian, L. and Ashford, J. W. and Montine, T. J.},
  title   = {{Cognitive Performance in Parkinson's Disease in the Brain Health Registry}},
  journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
  year    = {2019},
  doi     = {10.3233/jad-181009},
  pmid    = {30909225},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-181009}
}

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 names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: this is a follow-up (cohort) study. People are observed over time and not assigned to anything, so an association can reflect other differences between groups. Look at how long follow-up lasted, how many dropped out, and whether the authors adjusted for age, education and other health conditions.
Size: the record lists 11,813 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 moderate. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Moderate means the abstract mentions a cohort, case-control or longitudinal design. 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

We demonstrate that a novel online approach to recruitment and longitudinal follow-up of study participants is effective for those with self-reported PD, and that significant differences exist between those with and without a reported diagnosis of PD on computerized cognitive measures.
These results have important implications for recruitment of participants with PD into targeted therapeutic trials or large-scale genetic and cognitive studies.

Study details

Study designlongitudinal study
Participants11,813
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 66/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for 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 38 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 66 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	7 / 12	A longitudinal study following the same people over time
Strength of evidence	3 / 5	Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	2 / 5	2019 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	4 / 4	11,813 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 30909225)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	38 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 38 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 66 out of 100.
Total	66 / 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 “brain-health”

5 studies in the library carry the topic tag “brain-health”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 5 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 →