Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Diagnostic test accuracy of remote, multidomain cognitive assessment (telephone and video call) for dementia
Beishon LC, Elliott E, Hietamies TM, Mc Ardle R, O'Mahony A, Elliott AR, Quinn TJ.. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2022-04-08
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
To assess for potential differences in cognitive test scoring when using a remote platform, and where a remote screener was compared to the equivalent face-to-face test. For those studies comparing remote versus in-person use of an equivalent screening test, if data allowed, we described correlations, reliability, differences in scores and the proportion classified as having cognitive impairment for each test. Main results The review contains 31 studies (19 differing tests, 3075 participants), of which seven studies (six telephone, one video call, 756 participants) were relevant to our primary objective of describing test accuracy against a clinical diagnosis of dementia. Overall, sensitivity of remote tools varied with values between 26% and 100%, and specificity between 65% and 100%, with no clearly superior test.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Beishon, L. C., Elliott, E., Hietamies, T. M., Mc Ardle, R., O'Mahony, A., Elliott, A. R., et al. (2022). Diagnostic test accuracy of remote, multidomain cognitive assessment (telephone and video call) for dementia. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd013724.pub2
Vancouver
Beishon LC, Elliott E, Hietamies TM, Mc Ardle R, O'Mahony A, Elliott AR, et al. Diagnostic test accuracy of remote, multidomain cognitive assessment (telephone and video call) for dementia. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2022. doi:10.1002/14651858.cd013724.pub2. PMID: 35395108.
BibTeX
@article{beishon2022-35395108,
author = {Beishon, L. C. and Elliott, E. and Hietamies, T. M. and Mc Ardle, R. and O'Mahony, A. and Elliott, A. R. and Quinn, T. J.},
title = {{Diagnostic test accuracy of remote, multidomain cognitive assessment (telephone and video call) for dementia}},
journal = {The Cochrane database of systematic reviews},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1002/14651858.cd013724.pub2},
pmid = {35395108},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd013724.pub2}
}
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 7 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.
Key findings
- To assess for potential differences in cognitive test scoring when using a remote platform, and where a remote screener was compared to the equivalent face-to-face test.
- For those studies comparing remote versus in-person use of an equivalent screening test, if data allowed, we described correlations, reliability, differences in scores and the proportion classified as having cognitive impairment for each test.
- Main results The review contains 31 studies (19 differing tests, 3075 participants), of which seven studies (six telephone, one video call, 756 participants) were relevant to our primary objective of describing test accuracy against a clinical diagnosis of dementia.
- Overall, sensitivity of remote tools varied with values between 26% and 100%, and specificity between 65% and 100%, with no clearly superior test.
Study details
- Study designmeta-analysis
- Participants3,075
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 81/100
Published in a leading specialty 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 47 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 81 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (The Cochrane database of systematic reviews) |
| 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 |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 3,075 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 35395108) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 47 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 47 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 81 out of 100. |
| Total | 81 / 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 “accuracy”
4 studies in the library carry the topic tag “accuracy”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 4 tagged studies.