ArticleBelitung nursing journal2024
Mapping cognitive function screening instruments for patients with heart failure: A scoping review.
Article in Belitung nursing journal, 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.
- Neurocognitive and Psychosocial Interactions in Atrial Fibrillation: Toward a Holistic Model of Care.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with heart failure (HF) often experience cognitive impairment, which negatively affects their quality of life. An effective screening tool is essential for nurses and healthcare professionals to assess cognitive function as part of HF management. Although many instruments exist, none are specifically designed for patients with HF. Objective: This study aimed to map the instruments for screening cognitive function in patients with HF. Design: A scoping review. Data Sources: Articles published between 2019 and 2023 were searched in PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar, with the last search conducted on 27 January 2024. Review Methods: The review followed the scoping review framework by Arksey and O'Malley and adhered to PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews. Results: Of the 21 articles meeting inclusion criteria, six cognitive function screening instruments were used across various cognitive domains, effectively identifying cognitive impairment in both inpatient and outpatient HF settings. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was the most frequently used tool, covering a broad range of cognitive domains. MoCA showed high efficacy with a kappa coefficient of 0.82, Cronbach's alpha reliability of 0.75, sensitivity of 90%, and specificity of 87%. Conclusion: Instruments like MoCA, Mini-Cog, and TICS-m show promise for assessing cognitive function in patients with HF, each with specific strengths and limitations. MoCA is notable for its comprehensive coverage despite being time-consuming and having language barriers. Further research is needed to revalidate and improve the existing instruments. It is crucial for nurses and healthcare professionals to integrate these tools into regular patient management, highlighting the need for continued research in their application.
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.