ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
A comparison between seven scales of neuropsychological assessments for cognitive impairment screening in Chinese older population: a cross-sectional study in Chongqing, China.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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: The Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR), the Ascertain Dementia 8 (AD8), the Mini-Cog, the Verbal Fluency Test (VFT), the Community Screener for Dementia (CSI-D), the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT), and the Activities of Daily Living Scale (ADL) represent seven commonly employed methods for community cognitive impairment screening in China that have garnered limited attention. This study aimed to assess the discriminatory power of these seven tests when administered concurrently in a single screening to detect cognitive impairment in the absence of a gold standard. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey among 1,506 elderly people aged 60 and above in the community. The cognitive and social functions of the elderly population were evaluated by using the Seven scales. The characteristics related to demographics and health were collected through questionnaire surveys, and the correlations and consistencies of the Seven scales with cognitive impairment were analyzed respectively. Multifactor logistic regression model was used to analyze the risk factors of cognitive impairment in each scale. Results: The positive screening proportions for the seven scales-CDR, ADL, AD8, CSI-D, Mini-Cog, VFT, and RAVLT-were 61.1%, 33.7%, 38.0%, 37.1%, 53.7%, 39.3%, and 52.9%, respectively. Agreement on cognitive impairment risk between each pair of scales was fair-to-moderate (Kappa: 0.32-0.645, all Conclusions: Our study identified a relatively high screening positivity proportion for cognitive impairment in Chongqing, Age, Sex, Education, Marital status, Brain atrophy, Anxiety, and Depression are risk factors for screening positivity. The identified screening positivity for cognitive impairment varied across different neuropsychological assessment methods, indicating that assessment choice should be tailored to population characteristics rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach. Selecting the appropriate tool can improve sensitivity and reduce missed diagnoses.
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.