Evidence Hub

Digital Tools for Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy and Methodological Challenges

Aurora Bonvino, Ester Cornacchia, G. F. Scaramuzzi, Daphne Gasparre, Valerio Manippa, Davide Rivolta, P. Taurisano

Neuropsychology Review, 2025

13 citations

Abstract

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) represents an intermediate stage between typical aging and early cognitive decline. As such, an early and accurate diagnosis is essential in making timely interventions. Digital tools, including mobile applications, web platforms, wearable devices, and artificial intelligence-driven systems, have been developed and validated to capture multidimensional data, offering innovative screening solutions. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of digital tools for MCI detection in different populations and settings, with a particular focus on three key issues: (i) the overall diagnostic performance of digital tools, (ii) the influence of methodological quality of studies, and (iii) the impact of demographic factors and familiarity with technologies on diagnostic accuracy. This meta-analysis assessed diagnostic accuracy across 32 studies, reporting pooled sensitivity (0.808, 95% CI: 0.775-0.838) and specificity (0.795, 95% CI: 0.757-0.828), but with considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 71.5% sensitivity; 84.0% specificity). The HSROC analysis revealed significant intrinsic variability (τₐ = 0.807) and minimal threshold variability (τθ = 0.291). Meta-regression indicated that applicability concerns significantly reduced specificity (p = 0.037), with older age also predicting lower specificity (p = 0.029). Thus, implementing standardized protocols, rigorous validation processes, and targeted adaptations are crucial steps for enhancing…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free