| Title |
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Brief Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis (BICAMS)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neurology and Therapy, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40120-018-0102-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Freya Corfield, Dawn Langdon |
| Abstract |
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a neurological disease of the central nervous system which can lead to a range of severe physical disabilities. A large proportion of those affected will experience cognitive impairment, which is associated with a worse prognosis. Effective assessment of cognition in MS has been problematic due to a lack of suitable scales. The Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis (BICAMS) was developed in 2010 as part of an international endeavour to facilitate cognitive assessment. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to synthesise the available literature published as part of the BICAMS international validation protocol. A literature search conducted using PubMed, PsycINFO and Google Scholar identified 16 studies for inclusion in the systematic review, 14 of which could be included in a meta-analysis. BICAMS has been widely validated across 11 languages and 14 individual cultures and locations. The meta-analysis demonstrated that BICAMS identified significantly reduced cognitive functioning in adults with MS compared to healthy controls. This was true for all three cognitive domains assessed by BICAMS: information processing speed (g = 0.943, 95% CI 0.839, 1.046, g < 0.001), immediate verbal recall memory (g = 0.688, 95% CI 0.554, 0.822, p < 0.001) and immediate visual recall memory (g = 0.635, 95% CI 0.534, 0.736, p < 0.001). BICAMS has been widely applied across cultures and languages to assess cognition in MS. BICAMS offers a feasible, cost-effective means of assessing cognition in MS worldwide. Further validation studies are underway to support this project. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 40% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 141 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 11% |
| Researcher | 15 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 9% |
| Other | 11 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 27 | 19% |
| Unknown | 49 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 19% |
| Neuroscience | 23 | 16% |
| Psychology | 16 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 8% |
| Unknown | 56 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 July 2018.
All research outputs
#6,810,517
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from Neurology and Therapy
#164
of 423 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,222
of 328,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurology and Therapy
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 423 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
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 328,030 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.