Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Electronic Cognitive Screen Technology for Screening Older Adults With Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment in a Community Setting: Development and Validation Study
Chan JYC, Wong A, Yiu B, Mok H, Lam P, Kwan P, Chan A, Mok VCT et al.. Journal of medical Internet research, 2020-12-18
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Previous studies have shown that the diagnostic performance of digital cognitive tests is comparable with that of conventional paper-and-pencil tests. Results A total of 126 controls, 54 participants with MCI, and 63 participants with dementia were included in the study. There was a significant correlation between the EC-Screen and HK-MoCA (r=-0.67, P<.001).
Key findings
- Previous studies have shown that the diagnostic performance of digital cognitive tests is comparable with that of conventional paper-and-pencil tests.
- Results A total of 126 controls, 54 participants with MCI, and 63 participants with dementia were included in the study.
- There was a significant correlation between the EC-Screen and HK-MoCA (r=-0.67, P<.001).
Study details
- Participants54
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 52/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / 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 multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 52 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of medical Internet research) |
| 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 | 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 | 2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 54 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 | No randomisation 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 |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 33337341) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 30 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 52 out of 100. |
| Total | 52 / 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
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.
APA 7th
Chan, J. Y. C., Wong, A., Yiu, B., Mok, H., Lam, P., Kwan, P., et al. (2020). Electronic Cognitive Screen Technology for Screening Older Adults With Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment in a Community Setting: Development and Validation Study. Journal of medical Internet research. https://doi.org/10.2196/17332
Vancouver
Chan JYC, Wong A, Yiu B, Mok H, Lam P, Kwan P, et al. Electronic Cognitive Screen Technology for Screening Older Adults With Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment in a Community Setting: Development and Validation Study. Journal of medical Internet research. 2020. doi:10.2196/17332. PMID: 33337341.
BibTeX
@article{chan2020-33337341,
author = {Chan, J. Y. C. and Wong, A. and Yiu, B. and Mok, H. and Lam, P. and Kwan, P. and Chan, A. and Mok, V. C. T. and others},
title = {{Electronic Cognitive Screen Technology for Screening Older Adults With Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment in a Community Setting: Development and Validation Study}},
journal = {Journal of medical Internet research},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.2196/17332},
pmid = {33337341},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2196/17332}
}