Validity of cognitive screens for HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder

a systematic review and an informed screen selection guide

Jody Kamminga*, Lucette A. Cysique, Grace Lu, Jennifer Batchelor, Bruce J. Brew

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

    41 Citations (Scopus)
    28 Downloads (Pure)


    Various screening tools have been proposed to identify HIV-Associated Neurocognitive Disorder (HAND). However, there has been no systematic review of their strengths and weaknesses in detecting HAND when compared to gold standard neuropsychological testing. Thirty-five studies assessing HAND screens that were conducted in the era of combination antiretroviral therapy were retrieved using standard search procedures. Of those, 19 (54 %) compared their screen to standard neuropsychological testing. Studies were characterised by a wide variation in criterion validity primarily due to non-standard definition of neurocognitive impairment, and to the demographic and clinical heterogeneity of samples. Assessment of construct validity was lacking, and longitudinal useability was not established. To address these limitations, the current review proposed a summary of the most sensitive and specific studies (>70 %), as well as providing explicit caution regarding their weaknesses, and recommendations for their use in HIV primary care settings.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)342-355
    Number of pages14
    JournalCurrent HIV/AIDS Reports
    Issue number4
    Publication statusPublished - Dec 2013

    Bibliographical note

    Copyright the Author(s) 2013. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Validity of cognitive screens for HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder: a systematic review and an informed screen selection guide'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this