ArticleLupus science & medicine2024
Comparison of cognitive performance measures in individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus.
Article in Lupus science & medicine, 2024. 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.
- Conditions identified by common comprehensive geriatric assessment measures and subsequent acute care among adults with SLE.Lupus science & medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveCognitive impairment is a common complaint in SLE, but approaches to measuring cognitive performance objectively vary. Leveraging data collected in a population-based cohort of individuals with validated SLE, we compared performance and potential impairment across multiple measures of cognition.
methodsDuring a single study visit (October 2019-May 2022), times to complete the Trail Making Test B (TMTB; N=423) were recorded; potential impairment was defined as an age-corrected and education-corrected T-score <35 (>1.5 SD longer than the normative time). A clock drawing assessment (CLOX; N=435) with two parts (free clock draw (CLOX1) and copy (CLOX2)) was also performed (score range: 0-15; higher scores=better performance); potential impairment was defined as CLOX1 <10 or CLOX2 <12. Fluid cognition (N=199; in-person visits only) was measured via the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Toolbox Fluid Cognition Battery and expressed as age-corrected standard scores; potential impairment was defined by a score <77.5 (>1.5 SD lower the normative score).
resultsParticipants (mean age 46 years; 92% female; 82% black) had a median (IQR) TMTB time of 96 (76-130) s; median (IQR) CLOX1 and CLOX2 scores of 12 (10-13) and 14 (13-15); and a mean (SD) fluid cognition standard score of 87.2 (15.6). TMTB time and fluid cognition score (ρ=-0.53, p<0.001) were the most highly intercorrelated measures. Overall, 65%, 55% and 28% were potentially impaired by the TMTB test, CLOX task and NIH Toolbox Fluid Cognition Battery, respectively. While there was overlap in potential impairment between TMTB and CLOX, more than half (58%) had impairment by only one of these assessments. Few (2%) had impairment in fluid cognition only.
conclusionThe TMTB, CLOX and NIH Fluid Cognition Battery each provided unique and potentially important information about cognitive performance in our SLE cohort. Future studies are needed to validate these measures in SLE and explore interventions that maintain or improve cognitive performance in this population.
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.