The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Visual-spatial perception: a comparison between instruments frequently used in the primary care setting and a computerized cognitive assessment battery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Interventions in Aging, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cia.s92819 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Boris Punchik, Avital Shapovalov, Tzvi Dwolatzky, Yan Press |
| Abstract |
The development of screening instruments will help the primary care team to determine when further comprehensive cognitive assessment is necessary. A retrospective analysis based on medical records. Patients referred to a comprehensive geriatric assessment unit. Cognitive screening and assessment included visual-spatial components: the Mini Mental State Examination, the Clock Drawing Test, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test, and the Neurotrax (Mindstreams) computerized cognitive assessment battery. The average age of the 190 eligible patients was 81.09±5.42 years. Comparing the individual tests with that of the visual-spatial index of Neurotrax, we found the Trail Making B test to be most sensitive (72.4%) and the Cube Test to have the highest specificity (72.8%). A combination of tests resulted in higher sensitivity and lower specificity. The use of a combination of visual-spatial tests for screening in neurocognitive disorders should be evaluated in further prospective studies. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 65 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 17% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 9% |
| Researcher | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 13 | 20% |
| Unknown | 16 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 16 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 19 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 November 2015.
All research outputs
#20,816,184
of 25,576,275 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,554
of 1,973 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,325
of 295,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#43
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,275 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,973 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 295,307 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.