SynthesisBMC geriatrics2024
Diagnostic accuracy of cognitive screening tools validated for older adults in Iran: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC geriatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reliability, Validity, and Diagnostic Accuracy of the Persian Six-Item Cognitive Impairment Test (6-CIT) in Older Adult Outpatients.Brain and behavior · 2026Article
- Machine Learning Prediction of One-Year Rehospitalization in Dementia: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- An Investigation of the Psychometric Properties of the Farsi Version of the Saint Louis University Mental Status Examination.Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders · 2026Article
- Efficacy of virtual reality-based cognitive behavioral group therapy in enhancing emotional well-being and quality of life in Parkinson's disease: A randomized controlled trial.Clinical parkinsonism & related disorders · 2025Article
- Investigating the effect of the 5A self-management care model on the caregiver's burden in the aged with peptic ulcers: Randomized controlled Trial (RCT).Journal of education and health promotion · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis systematic review aims to comprehensively assess the diagnostic accuracy of cognitive screening tools validated for older adults in Iran, providing evidence-based recommendations for clinicians and researchers.
methodsA comprehensive search in March 2023 across Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, SID, IranMedex, and IranDoc, enhanced by hand-searching references and Google Scholar, identified cross-sectional studies on cognitive screening in Iranian seniors. We assessed diagnostic accuracy, cognitive domains, and test strengths and weaknesses. A bivariate random-effects meta-analysis provided summary estimates and 95% confidence intervals, illustrated in forest plots.
resultsOur review, derived from an initial screening of 38 articles, focused on 17 studies involving 14 cognitive screening tools and participant counts from 60 to 350, mostly from specialized clinics. The MMSE was the only tool examined in at least three studies, prompting a meta-analysis revealing its sensitivity at 0.89 and specificity at 0.77 for dementia detection, albeit amidst significant heterogeneity (I^2 > 80%). ACE-III demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy for MCI and dementia, while MoCA's performance was deemed adequate for MCI and excellent for dementia. High bias risk in studies limits interpretation.
conclusionThis review identifies key cognitive tools for dementia and MCI in Iranian older adults, tailored to educational levels for use in primary and specialized care. It emphasizes the need for further validation to enhance diagnostic precision across diverse settings, within a concise framework prioritizing brevity and accuracy for clinical applicability.
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.