This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

45/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Cognitive tests and assessment

Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment

Plain-language summary

Introduction Despite the urgent need for remote neurobehavioral assessment of individuals with cognitive impairment, guidance is lacking. Our goal is to provide a multi-dimensional framework for remotely assessing cognitive, functional, behavioral, and physical aspects of people with cognitive impairment, along with ethical and technical considerations. Methods Literature review on remote cognitive assessment and multidisciplinary expert opinion from behavioral neurologists, neuropsychiatrists, neuropsychologists, and geriatricians was integrated under the auspices of the Alzheimer Society of Canada Task Force on Dementia Care Best Practices for COVID-19. Telephone and video approaches to assessments were considered. Results Remote assessment is shown to be acceptable to patients and caregivers. Informed consent, informant history, and attention to privacy and autonomy are paramount. A range of screening and domain-specific instruments are available for telephone or video assessment of cognition, function, and behavior. Some neuropsychological tests administered by videoconferencing show good agreement with in-person assessment but still lack validation and norms. Aspects of the remote dementia-focused neurological examination can be performed reliably. Discussion Despite challenges, current literature and practice support implementation of telemedicine assessments for patients with cognitive impairment. Convergence of data across the clinical interview, reliable and brief remote cognitive tests, and remote neurological exam increase confidence in clinical interpretation and diagnosis.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Geddes, M. R., O'Connell, M. E., Fisk, J. D., Gauthier, S., Camicioli, R., Ismail, Z., et al. (2020). Remote cognitive and behavioral assessment: Report of the Alzheimer Society of Canada Task Force on dementia care best practices for COVID-19. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.12111

Vancouver

Geddes MR, O'Connell ME, Fisk JD, Gauthier S, Camicioli R, Ismail Z, et al. Remote cognitive and behavioral assessment: Report of the Alzheimer Society of Canada Task Force on dementia care best practices for COVID-19. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2020. doi:10.1002/dad2.12111. PMID: 32999916.

BibTeX

@article{geddes2020-32999916,
  author  = {Geddes, M. R. and O'Connell, M. E. and Fisk, J. D. and Gauthier, S. and Camicioli, R. and Ismail, Z. and {Alzheimer Society of Canada Task Force on Dementia Care Best Practices for COVID‐19}},
  title   = {{Remote cognitive and behavioral assessment: Report of the Alzheimer Society of Canada Task Force on dementia care best practices for COVID-19}},
  journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)},
  year    = {2020},
  doi     = {10.1002/dad2.12111},
  pmid    = {32999916},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.12111}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: this is a narrative review. It summarises a field without a fixed search method, so it shows how authors read the evidence rather than measuring it. Use it to find the primary studies, not as a result in itself.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Results Remote assessment is shown to be acceptable to patients and caregivers.

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 45/100

Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	9 / 10	Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands))
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	2 / 5	2020 — within 10 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)
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 32999916)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	26 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100.
Total	45 / 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.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment from nearby years

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.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Cognitive tests and assessment

See all studies in Cognitive tests and assessment →