↓ Skip to main content

Cognitive screening test in primary care: cut points for low education

Overview of attention for article published in Revista de Saúde Pública, November 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
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.
Title
Cognitive screening test in primary care: cut points for low education
Published in
Revista de Saúde Pública, November 2018
DOI 10.11606/s1518-8787.2018052000462
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juliana Emy Yokomizo, Katrin Seeher, Glaucia Martins de Oliveira, Laís dos Santos Vinholi e Silva, Laura Saran, Henry Brodaty, Ivan Aprahamian, Monica Sanches Yassuda, Cássio Machado de Campos Bottino

Abstract

To establish the diagnostic accuracy of the Brazilian version of the General Practitioner Assessment of Cognition (GPCOG-Br) compared to the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in individuals with low educational level. Ninety-three patients (≥ 60 years old) from Brazilian primary care units provided sociodemographic, cognitive, and functional data. Receiver operating characteristics, areas under the curve (AUC) and logistic regressions were conducted. Sixty-eight patients with 0-4 years of education. Cases (n = 44) were older (p = 0.006) and performed worse than controls (n = 49) on all cognitive or functional measures (p < 0.001). The GPCOG-Br demonstrated similar diagnostic accuracy to the MMSE (AUC = 0.90 and 0.91, respectively) and similar positive and negative predictive values (PPV/NPV, respectively: 0.79/0.86 for GPCOG-Br and 0.79/0.81 for MMSE). Adjusted cut-points displayed high sensitivity (all 86%) and satisfactory specificity (65%-80%). Lower educational level predicted lower cognitive performance. The GPCOG-Br is clinically well-suited for use in primary care.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 17%
Student > Master 5 10%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 21 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 21%
Neuroscience 5 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Psychology 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 25 48%
Attention Score in Context

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 14 December 2018.
All research outputs
#4,838,109
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Revista de Saúde Pública
#127
of 1,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,023
of 354,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista de Saúde Pública
#2
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,138 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 354,588 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.