Assessing cognition after stroke. Who misses out? a systematic review

Wall, Kylie J., Isaacs, Megan L., Copland, David A. and Cumming, Toby B. (2015) Assessing cognition after stroke. Who misses out? a systematic review. International Journal of Stroke, 10 5: 665-671. doi:10.1111/ijs.12506


Author Wall, Kylie J.
Isaacs, Megan L.
Copland, David A.
Cumming, Toby B.
Title Assessing cognition after stroke. Who misses out? a systematic review
Journal name International Journal of Stroke   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 1747-4949
1747-4930
Publication date 2015-07
Sub-type Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
DOI 10.1111/ijs.12506
Open Access Status
Volume 10
Issue 5
Start page 665
End page 671
Total pages 7
Place of publication Richmond, VIC Australia
Publisher Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Asia
Collection year 2016
Language eng
Formatted abstract
Background: Cognitive impairments post-stroke are common. Assessment of cognition typically involves pen-and-paper tasks, which are often reliant on linguistic and motor function, creating barriers for many stroke survivors. The characteristics of stroke survivors excluded from cognitive assessments have never been investigated.
Aims: (1) To determine if the stroke samples included in studies evaluating clinimetric properties of cognitive assessments represent the stroke population, (2) to identify the different modes of cognitive assessments, and (3) to ascertain whether the different modes of cognitive assessments influence the stroke samples used in the studies.
Summary of review: We systematically reviewed studies that evaluated at least one clinimetric property of a cognitive assessment in adult stroke survivors from January 2000 to October 2013. Eligibility criteria, reasons for drop-outs and missing data were extracted. A theming process was employed to synthesize the data. From the initial yield of 3731 articles, 109 were included. Six broad categories describing reasons for exclusion were identified. Cognitive impairments were the most common (68%), then communication issues (62%), endurance problems (42%), sensory loss (39%), psychiatric illness (38%) and motor limitations (27%). The most prevalent assessment mode was pen-and-paper (73%), then virtual reality (11%), computer (6%), observational functional performance (5%), informant (3%) and telephone (3%). Regardless of mode, issues with cognition and communication were the most frequently used exclusion criteria.
Conclusions: Our findings indicate that cognitive assessments are not tested in representative stroke samples. Research is needed to identify valid and reliable cognitive assessments that are feasible in a wider range of stroke survivors.
Keyword Clinimetrics
Cognitive assessment
Neuropsychological assessment
Pen-and-paper
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Confirmed Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
Collections: UQ Centre for Clinical Research Publications
Official 2016 Collection
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 1 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 1 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Tue, 07 Jul 2015, 01:13:02 EST by System User on behalf of Scholarly Communication and Digitisation Service