4.6 Article

Cognitive complaints in the early phase after stroke are not indicative of cognitive impairment

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY NEUROSURGERY AND PSYCHIATRY
Volume 79, Issue 2, Pages 143-146

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jnnp.2007.114595

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The present study was designed to evaluate the diagnostic contribution of subjective information, obtained by a standardised checklist, to the identification of patients with cognitive impairment in the early phase after stroke. Methods: The data were collected retrospectively by file analysis of both medical and psychological records of patients with a first-ever stroke who were discharged home from the stroke unit. All these patients underwent neuropsychological examination by protocol. Patients were included for data analyses if they completed the Checklist for Cognitive and Emotional consequences following stroke within 2 weeks after discharge. Data from a control group were used to classify patients into normal and cognitively impaired. Results: A total of 61 patients was included in the study. Ninety percent reported at least one psychological problem hindering daily life and 74% of the total sample reported at least one hindering cognitive problem. The most reported cognitive complaints concerned attention (38%), mental speed (46%) and memory (38%). Cognitive impairment varied between 16 and 66% based on the specific neuropsychological task. Cognitive complaints appeared to be unrelated to cognitive impairment. Only the relationship between cognitive and emotional complaints was significant (p < 0.01). Conclusions: Cognitive complaints hindering daily life are frequently reported in the early weeks after stroke but are no indication for impaired cognitive performance. To identify patients with cognitive impairment, neuropsychological assessment is essential.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available