ArticlePloS one2025
Computerized neuropsychological assessment in post-COVID condition.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAttention/ processing speed deficits with or without executive function and episodic memory deficits have been suggested as a relatively characteristic cognitive profile of people with post-COVID condition (PCC). Most studies have been performed using standardized paper and pencil neuropsychological assessment. Sensitive and applicable tests are needed to improve the diagnostic capacity of patients with PCC.
objectivesIn this study, we aimed to investigate the dimensions of a comprehensive computerized neuropsychological battery and to characterize the cognitive characteristics of patients with PCC. MATERIALS AND
methodsFive hundred and eight participants were enrolled in the study (PCC = 227, Healthy Controls, HC = 281) and underwent cognitive assessment focused on attention, concentration, executive functions, and episodic memory. We conducted a multi-group confirmatory factor analysis. Factor scores were obtained to compare the PCC and HC groups and partial invariance analysis was performed to identify relevant cognitive processes that differentiate the two groups.
resultsThe proposed four-factor model showed adequate fit indices. There were differences in attention, concentration, and executive functions factor scores with small to moderate effect sizes and with a particular implication of attention processes based on measurement invariance analysis. Impairments in reaction times and divided attention were especially relevant in patients with PCC.
conclusionsThe battery revealed four factors representing attention, concentration, executive functions, and episodic memory. The PCC group performed worse than the HC group in attention, concentration, and executive functions. These findings suggest the validity of computerized neuropsychological assessment, which could be particularly useful in PCC.
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.