SynthesisAge and ageing2025
Diagnosis accuracy of touchscreen-based testings for major neurocognitive disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Age and ageing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Screening for Alzheimer's disease in the community using an AI-driven screening platform: design of the PREDICTOM study.The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease · 2026Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of digital clock drawing test for Alzheimer disease and mild cognitive impairment.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Touchscreen-Based Tests for Mild Cognitive Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Mobile cognitive assessment demonstrates diagnostic equivalence to MMSE and MoCA scales in Alzheimer's disease screening.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Facing an increasing prevalence, diagnosis and management of dementia has become a global health challenge. While most cognitive assessments are based on paper tests, the current trend is to digitise them, using new technologies. We aimed to achieve a systematic review on touchscreen-based assessments for neurocognitive disorders. A search on four databases (PubMed, Embase, IEEE Xplore and Web of Science) was performed. Two investigators independently selected the articles and assessed their quality using the QUADAS-2 tool. We included articles whose participants were over 65 years, classified according to the presence/absence of major neurocognitive disorder (M-NCD) determined by conventional assessment of cognition, examined with a novel tool using a touchscreen device (tablet or smartphone). We finally retained 35 articles for the systematic review and 24 for the meta-analysis. Of the 35 articles included in the systematic review, participants had Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, vascular dementia, Lewy body disease or any type of dementia. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.89 (95% CI: 0.86-0.91) and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.82-0.92), respectively. Performances of self-administered or brief assessment testings were similar to those of assessor-administered or longer duration testings. The major limitation of this review and meta-analysis is the multiplicity and diversity of methods (tools, cognition assessment and type of M-NCD), which make the comparison difficult. We conclude that brief and self-assessment touchscreen-based cognitive tests are appropriate and simple tools to screen major cognitive disorders that can be used in primary care. The study was registered in Prospero (CRD42022358725).
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.