Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Comparison of Computerized and Paper-and-Pencil Memory Tests in Detection of Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Studies
Chan JYC, Kwong JSW, Wong A, Kwok TCY, Tsoi KKF.. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 2018-06-18
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Objectives To compare the diagnostic performance of computerized and paper-and-pencil memory tests in detection of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. Design Diagnostic studies comparing computerized or paper-and-pencil memory tests with the standard diagnostic criterion for MCI or dementia were identified from OVID databases. The primary outcome was the diagnostic performance of memory tests for detection of MCI, and detection of dementia was the secondary outcome. Risk of bias and reporting quality in included studies was assessed. Setting and participants Participants with MCI and dementia in any kind of setting. Measures Bivariate random-effects models were used to combine the diagnostic performance of memory tests and presented with a summary receiver-operating characteristic curve. Results A total of 58 studies with 18,450 participants with mean age ranging from 55 to 84 years were included. For the verbal memory tests on patients with MCI, computerized tests showed diagnostic accuracy of 0.89 sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-0.97) and 0.82 specificity (95% CI 0.70-0.90), whereas paper-and-pencil tests showed diagnostic accuracy of 0.86 sensitivity (95% CI 0.82-0.90) and 0.82 specificity (95% CI 0.76-0.86). For the visual memory tests on MCI patients, computerized tests showed diagnostic accuracy of 0.79 sensitivity (95% CI 0.71-0.84) and 0.80 specificity (95% CI 0.71-0.86), whereas paper-and-pencil tests showed diagnostic accuracy of 0.80 sensitivity (95% CI 0.67-0.89) and 0.68 specificity (95% CI 0.51-0.81). The findings were also comparable to those with dementia. Conclusions/implications Both verbal and visual computerized memory tests showed comparable diagnostic performance to the paper-and-pencil tests. Computerized cognitive tests show a great potential to use as an alternative to paper-and-pencil tests. When the records can be digitalized, long-term monitoring of cognitive function will be feasible for better management of dementia.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Chan, J. Y. C., Kwong, J. S. W., Wong, A., Kwok, T. C. Y., & Tsoi, K. K. F. (2018). Comparison of Computerized and Paper-and-Pencil Memory Tests in Detection of Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Studies. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2018.05.010
Vancouver
Chan JYC, Kwong JSW, Wong A, Kwok TCY, Tsoi KKF. Comparison of Computerized and Paper-and-Pencil Memory Tests in Detection of Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Studies. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2018. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2018.05.010. PMID: 29921507.
BibTeX
@article{chan2018-29921507,
author = {Chan, J. Y. C. and Kwong, J. S. W. and Wong, A. and Kwok, T. C. Y. and Tsoi, K. K. F.},
title = {{Comparison of Computerized and Paper-and-Pencil Memory Tests in Detection of Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Studies}},
journal = {Journal of the American Medical Directors Association},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.1016/j.jamda.2018.05.010},
pmid = {29921507},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2018.05.010}
}
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
- Results A total of 58 studies with 18,450 participants with mean age ranging from 55 to 84 years were included.
Study details
- Participants18,450
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 71/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. Scored zero for effect reported 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 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 71 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Medical Directors Association) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A meta-analysis pooling many studies (from PubMed type “Meta-Analysis”) |
| 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 | 2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 4 / 4 | 18,450 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 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| 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 29921507) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 41 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 71 out of 100. |
| Total | 71 / 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.