You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Validation of NINDS-CSN neuropsychological battery for vascular cognitive impairment in Chinese stroke patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Neurology, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12883-015-0270-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xiangliang Chen, Adrian Wong, Ruidong Ye, Lulu Xiao, Zhaojun Wang, Ying Lin, Fang Yang, Hua Li, Ting Feng, Lihui Duan, Yunfei Han, Qiliang Dai, Juan Du, Gelin Xu, Vincent Mok, Yunyun Xiong, Xinfeng Liu |
| Abstract |
The NINDS-Canadian Stroke Network (NINDS-CSN) recommended a neuropsychological battery of three protocols to diagnose vascular cognitive impairment (VCI), however, due to culture and language differences, the battery cannot be directly used in China. Validation of the battery in mandarin Chinese is lacking. Our study investigated the reliability and validity of the adapted Chinese versions of the battery in stroke patients with high probability of VCI. Fifty mild stroke patients (median of National Institute of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score, 2) and 50 stroke-free normal controls were recruited. All subjects' demographics, clinical history, and stroke severity were recorded. The NINDS-CSN neuropsychological protocols were adapted into the Chinese versions. External validity, defined as the ability of the protocol summary scores to differentiate stroke patients from controls, was determined using the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristics curve. We also evaluated internal consistency and intra-rater reliability. Stroke patients performed significantly poorer than controls on all three protocols (F statistics between 24.9 and 31.4, P < 0.001). External validity evaluated by AUCs was 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-0.95), 0.88 (95% CI, 0.81-0.94), and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.79-0.94) for the 60-min, 30-min and 5-min protocols, respectively. Cronbach's alpha of the cognitive tests was 0.87 for all subjects. Intra-rater reliability was acceptable with intraclass correlation coefficients 0.90, 0.83 and 0.75 for the 60-min, 30-min and 5-min protocols, respectively. The adapted Chinese versions of three NINDS-CSN neuropsychological protocols were valid and reliable for assessing VCI in Chinese patients with mild stroke. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 66 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 19% |
| Researcher | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 15% |
| Unknown | 16 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 15 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 18% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 9% |
| Linguistics | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 18 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 24 April 2015.
All research outputs
#4,173,376
of 22,800,560 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neurology
#492
of 2,434 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,567
of 256,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neurology
#13
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,800,560 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,434 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 256,950 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.