Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Digital screening tool for the assessment of cognitive impairment in unsupervised setting-digiDEM-SCREEN: study protocol for a validation study
Zeiler M, Dietzel N, Kammerer K, Frick U, Pryss R, Heuschmann P, Prokosch HU, Graessel E et al.. BMJ open, 2025-01-11
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Introduction Dementia is one of the most relevant widespread diseases, with a prevalence of currently 55 million people with dementia worldwide. However, about 60-75% of people with dementia have not yet received a formal diagnosis. Asymptomatic screening of cognitive impairments using neuropsychiatric tests has been proven to efficiently enhance diagnosis rates. Digital screening tools, in particular, provide the advantage of being accessible without spatial or time restrictions. The study aims to validate a digital cognitive screening test (digiDEM-SCREEN) as an app in the German language. Methods and analysis This is a multicentre study in Bavaria. Participants are people with mild cognitive impairment, people with dementia in an early stage and cognitively healthy people. Recruitment will take place in specialised diagnostic facilities (memory outpatient clinics). 135 participants are aimed based on a power analysis. Sociodemographic data, diagnosis and results of neuropsychiatric tests (Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, digiDEM-SCREEN) will be collected at one point per person via electronic data capturing. The sensitivity, specificity and corresponding cut-off values will be determined based on receiver-operating-characteristic curves. The correlation of the digiDEM-SCREEN test with existing cognitive screening/testing procedures will be analysed. Ethics and dissemination The study obtained ethical approval from the Ethics Committee of the Julius-Maximilians-Universität of Würzburg (JMU) (application number: 177/23-sc). The test will give feedback about the current cognitive status and possible cognitive impairments that should lead to the users seeking further diagnostic measures by medical professionals. It will be accessible free of charge in established app stores. The results of the validation study will be published in peer-reviewed journals.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Zeiler, M., Dietzel, N., Kammerer, K., Frick, U., Pryss, R., Heuschmann, P., et al. (2025). Digital screening tool for the assessment of cognitive impairment in unsupervised setting-digiDEM-SCREEN: study protocol for a validation study. BMJ open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087256
Vancouver
Zeiler M, Dietzel N, Kammerer K, Frick U, Pryss R, Heuschmann P, et al. Digital screening tool for the assessment of cognitive impairment in unsupervised setting-digiDEM-SCREEN: study protocol for a validation study. BMJ open. 2025. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087256. PMID: 39800401.
BibTeX
@article{zeiler2025-39800401,
author = {Zeiler, M. and Dietzel, N. and Kammerer, K. and Frick, U. and Pryss, R. and Heuschmann, P. and Prokosch, H. U. and Graessel, E. and others},
title = {{Digital screening tool for the assessment of cognitive impairment in unsupervised setting-digiDEM-SCREEN: study protocol for a validation study}},
journal = {BMJ open},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087256},
pmid = {39800401},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087256}
}
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's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Sociodemographic data, diagnosis and results of neuropsychiatric tests (Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, digiDEM-SCREEN) will be collected at one point per person via electronic data capturing.
- The results of the validation study will be published in peer-reviewed journals.
Study details
- Participants135
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 53/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, 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 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 53 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (BMJ open) |
| 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 | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 135 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 39800401) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 31 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 53 out of 100. |
| Total | 53 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “protocol”
6 studies in the library carry the topic tag “protocol”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 6 tagged studies.