4.3 Article

Is computerized screening for processing speed impairment sufficient for identifying MS-related cognitive impairment in a clinical setting?

Journal

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS AND RELATED DISORDERS
Volume 54, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.msard.2021.103106

Keywords

Neuropsychological assessment; Cognitive impairment; Multiple sclerosis; Processing speed

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health
  2. National Multiple Sclerosis Society
  3. Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute
  4. Race to Erase MS Foundation
  5. Genentech
  6. Genzyme
  7. Novartis
  8. Biogen, Inc.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that the Processing Speed Test (PST) has excellent sensitivity and specificity in identifying cognitive impairment in patients with multiple sclerosis (pwMS), but is unable to accurately identify cognitively impaired patients without processing speed impairment.
Background: Annual screening for processing speed impairment (PSI) is recommended for patients with multiple sclerosis (pwMS). However, cognitive deficits in pwMS are heterogeneous, and whether PSI screening identifies patients with impairment in other cognitive domains is unclear. The objective of this study was to examine sensitivity and specificity of the self-administered, computerized Processing Speed Test (PST) in identifying cognitive impairment defined by a comprehensive neuropsychological battery (NPT). Methods: Ninety-one pwMS completed PST and NPT, with raw scores demographically adjusted. Cognitive impairment on NPT was defined as performance <5th percentile in at least one domain. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were performed to determine the ability of the PST to discriminate between cognitively normal (CN) and cognitively impaired with PSI (CI-PSI) and cognitively impaired with normal processing speed (CI-PSN) groups. Results: Cognitive impairment was observed in 23.1% of pwMS on PST and in 42.9% on NPT. PST demonstrated excellent ability to discriminate between CN (57.1%) and CI-PSI (20.9%) groups (Area Under the Curve [AUC] = 0.86, p < 0.001). In contrast, PST was unable to discriminate CN and CI-PSN (22.0%) groups (AUC = 0.42, p = 0.32). Conclusion: The PST demonstrates excellent ability to detect PSI in pwMS but is unable to identify cognitively impaired pwMS without PSI, highlighting the importance of developing additional screening measures.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available