Trial reportJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2025
Validity and usability for digital cognitive assessment tools to screen for mild cognitive impairment: a randomized crossover trial.
Trial report in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adaptive pathways for multimodal community-based detection of cognitive impairment: the CogScreen I study.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Scenario-Based Serious Game for Screening Mild Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults: Cross-Sectional Preliminary Validation Study.JMIR serious games · 2026Article
- Executive Dysfunction-A Serious Game for Assessment in Real-Life Contexts: Development and Cross-Sectional Usability Study.JMIR serious games · 2026Article
- Early identification of vascular cognitive impairment from a multimodal perspective: a combined diagnosis from targeted cognitive assessments, imaging biomarkers, and molecular fluid biomarkers to ecological behavioral characteristics.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Review
- Validation of an artificial intelligence-based drawing platform against the Clock Drawing Test for cognitive screening: a comparative study between Alzheimer's disease and healthy controls.Family practice · 2026Article
- Low-burden AI approach for cross-national early identification of cognitive impairment using real-world questionnaire response behaviours.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of digital clock drawing test for Alzheimer disease and mild cognitive impairment.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Development and Piloting of Co.Ge.: A Web-Based Digital Platform for Generative and Clinical Cognitive Assessment.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluating the predictive accuracy of cognitive screeners BAMCOG and MoCA in identifying postoperative delirium risk in aortic valve replacement patients: A cohort study.PLOS digital health · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe practicality of implementing digital cognitive screening tests in primary health care (PHC) for the detection of cognitive impairments, particularly among populations with lower education levels, remains unclear. The aim of this study is to assess the validity and usability of digital cognitive screening tests in PHC settings.
methodsWe utilized a randomized crossover design, whereby 47 community-dwelling participants aged 65 and above were randomized into two groups. One group completed the paper-based Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Clock Drawing Test (CDT) first, followed by the tablet-based digital version after a two-week washout period, while the other group did the reverse. Validity was assessed by Spearman correlation, linear mixed-effects models, sensitivity specificity, and area under the curve (AUC). Usability was assessed through the Usefulness, Satisfaction, and Ease of Use (USE) questionnaire, participant preferences and assessment duration. Regression analyses were conducted to explore the impact of usability on digital test scores, controlling for cognitive level, education, age, and gender.
resultsRegarding validity, digital tests showed moderate correlations with paper-based versions and superior AUC performance. The AUC was 0.65 for the MMSE versus 0.82 for the electronic MMSE (eMMSE), and 0.45 for the CDT compared to 0.65 for the electronic CDT (eCDT). Regarding usability, while older participants gave positive feedback on digital tests (P < 0.001), they preferred paper-based versions. The eMMSE took significantly longer to complete than the MMSE, averaging 7.11 min versus 6.21 min (P = 0.01). Notably, digital test scores were minimally affected by subjective attitudes but strongly linked to test duration (β = -0.62, 95% CI: -1.07 to -0.17).
conclusionsDigital cognitive tests are valid and feasible in PHC settings but face implementation challenges, especially in usability and adaptability among individuals with lower education levels.
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.