ReviewCogent psychology2023
Cognitive testing following transient ischaemic attack: A systematic review of clinical assessment tools.
Review in Cogent psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hippocampal region metabolites and cognitive impairment in patients with general paresis: based onFrontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cognitive deficits are prevalent after transient ischaemic attack (TIA) and result in loss of function, poorer quality of life and increased risks of dependency and mortality. This systematic review aimed to synthesise the available evidence on cognitive assessment in TIA patients to determine the prevalence of cognitive deficits, and the optimal tests for cognitive assessment. Medline, Embase, PsychINFO and CINAHL databases were searched for relevant articles. Articles were screened by title and abstract. Full-text analysis and quality assessment was performed using the National Institute of Health Tool. Data were extracted on study characteristics, prevalence of TIA deficits, and key study findings. Due to significant heterogeneity, meta-analysis was not possible. Twenty-five full-text articles met the review inclusion criteria. There was significant heterogeneity in terms of cognitive tests used, definitions of cognitive impairment and TIA, time points post-event, and analysis methods. The majority of studies used the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) or Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.