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.

52/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Risk factors

Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment

Plain-language summary

The objective of this study was to assess the convergent validity of a 26-point Telephone Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in a longitudinal cohort of 46 Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients. Paired in-person and telephone MMSE observations were collected within 35 days of each other. The setting was the Stanford/VA Alzheimer's Center in Palo Alto, California, and patients' residences. The 30-point Folstein MMSE was administered in-person, and a 26-point telephone version of the MMSE, adapted from the Adult Lifestyles and Function Interview (ALFI)-MMSE. Total scores for the in-person and telephone MMSE versions correlated strongly (Pearson's r =.88, P <.001). Hearing impairment and education level did not significantly affect telephone-based performance. The Telephone MMSE can be used to validly estimate in-person MMSE scores of patients with AD. Use of this practical measure can enhance reassessment if returning to the clinic is difficult or if a change in the patient's medical condition merits a check of mental status by telephone.

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

APA 7th

Newkirk, L. A., Kim, J. M., Thompson, J. M., Tinklenberg, JR., Yesavage, J. A., & Taylor, J. L. (2004). Validation of a 26-point telephone version of the Mini-Mental State Examination. Journal of geriatric psychiatry and neurology. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891988704264534

Vancouver

Newkirk LA, Kim JM, Thompson JM, Tinklenberg JR, Yesavage JA, Taylor JL. Validation of a 26-point telephone version of the Mini-Mental State Examination. Journal of geriatric psychiatry and neurology. 2004. doi:10.1177/0891988704264534. PMID: 15157348.

BibTeX

@article{newkirk2004-15157348,
  author  = {Newkirk, L. A. and Kim, J. M. and Thompson, J. M. and Tinklenberg, JR. and Yesavage, J. A. and Taylor, J. L.},
  title   = {{Validation of a 26-point telephone version of the Mini-Mental State Examination}},
  journal = {Journal of geriatric psychiatry and neurology},
  year    = {2004},
  doi     = {10.1177/0891988704264534},
  pmid    = {15157348},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1177/0891988704264534}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: this is a follow-up (cohort) study. People are observed over time and not assigned to anything, so an association can reflect other differences between groups. Look at how long follow-up lasted, how many dropped out, and whether the authors adjusted for age, education and other health conditions.
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 moderate. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Moderate means the abstract mentions a cohort, case-control or longitudinal design. 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

Hearing impairment and education level did not significantly affect telephone-based performance.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →

Study details

Study designlongitudinal study
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 52/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for 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 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 geriatric psychiatry and neurology)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	7 / 12	A longitudinal study following the same people over time
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	1 / 5	2004 — older than 20 years, still counted
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 15157348)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
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.

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

Related studies in Risk factors 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 Risk factors

See all studies in Risk factors →