Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Diagnosis accuracy of touchscreen-based testings for major neurocognitive disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Um Din N, Maronnat F, Zolnowski-Kolp V, Otmane S, Belmin J.. Age and ageing, 2025-07-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Facing an increasing prevalence, diagnosis and management of dementia has become a global health challenge. While most cognitive assessments are based on paper tests, the current trend is to digitise them, using new technologies. We aimed to achieve a systematic review on touchscreen-based assessments for neurocognitive disorders. A search on four databases (PubMed, Embase, IEEE Xplore and Web of Science) was performed. Two investigators independently selected the articles and assessed their quality using the QUADAS-2 tool. We included articles whose participants were over 65 years, classified according to the presence/absence of major neurocognitive disorder (M-NCD) determined by conventional assessment of cognition, examined with a novel tool using a touchscreen device (tablet or smartphone). We finally retained 35 articles for the systematic review and 24 for the meta-analysis. Of the 35 articles included in the systematic review, participants had Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, vascular dementia, Lewy body disease or any type of dementia. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.89 (95% CI: 0.86-0.91) and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.82-0.92), respectively. Performances of self-administered or brief assessment testings were similar to those of assessor-administered or longer duration testings. The major limitation of this review and meta-analysis is the multiplicity and diversity of methods (tools, cognition assessment and type of M-NCD), which make the comparison difficult. We conclude that brief and self-assessment touchscreen-based cognitive tests are appropriate and simple tools to screen major cognitive disorders that can be used in primary care. The study was registered in Prospero (CRD42022358725).
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Um Din, N., Maronnat, F., Zolnowski-Kolp, V., Otmane, S., & Belmin, J. (2025). Diagnosis accuracy of touchscreen-based testings for major neurocognitive disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Age and ageing. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afaf204
Vancouver
Um Din N, Maronnat F, Zolnowski-Kolp V, Otmane S, Belmin J. Diagnosis accuracy of touchscreen-based testings for major neurocognitive disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Age and ageing. 2025. doi:10.1093/ageing/afaf204. PMID: 40742248.
BibTeX
@article{umdin2025-40742248,
author = {Um Din, N. and Maronnat, F. and Zolnowski-Kolp, V. and Otmane, S. and Belmin, J.},
title = {{Diagnosis accuracy of touchscreen-based testings for major neurocognitive disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis}},
journal = {Age and ageing},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1093/ageing/afaf204},
pmid = {40742248},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afaf204}
}
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
- We conclude that brief and self-assessment touchscreen-based cognitive tests are appropriate and simple tools to screen major cognitive disorders that can be used in primary care.
Study details
- Study designsystematic review
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 72/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people 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 42 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 72 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Age and ageing) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 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 | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 40742248) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 42 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 42 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 72 out of 100. |
| Total | 72 / 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 “neurocognitive-disorders”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “neurocognitive-disorders”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.