4.1 Article

Diagnostic Accuracy and Confidence in the Clinical Detection of Cognitive Impairment in Early-Stage Parkinson Disease

Journal

JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY AND NEUROLOGY
Volume 30, Issue 3, Pages 178-183

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0891988717701001

Keywords

cognitive impairment; cognitive testing; movement disorder; neuropsychological testing; Parkinson disease

Funding

  1. Michael J. Fox Foundation (MJFF) for Parkinson Research
  2. Abbvie
  3. Avid Radiopharmaceuticals
  4. Biogen
  5. Britsol-Myers Squibb
  6. Covance
  7. GE Healthcare
  8. Genetech
  9. GlaxoSmithKline
  10. Lilly
  11. Lundbeck
  12. Merck
  13. Meso Scale Discovery
  14. Pfizer
  15. Piramal
  16. Roche
  17. Servier
  18. UCB

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Aims: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is present in up to 34% of patients with early-stage Parkinson disease (PD); however, it is difficult to detect subtle impairment without objective cognitive testing. Methods: Data were obtained from the Parkinson Progression Marker Initiative. All 341 participants were administered the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and a brief neuropsychological battery. Participants were classified as PD-MCI if MoCA was <26 or if they scored 1 standard deviation below the normative mean in 2 or more domains, based upon established criteria. The sensitivity/specificity for the clinical detection of PD-MCI was determined. Results: Overall accuracy for clinical detection of PD-MCI was 67.4%. Although clinical determination was highly specific (96.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-0.98), sensitivity was poor (32.0%; 95% CI: 0.25-0.40). Conclusion: Identifying MCI in early-stage PD based on clinical interview alone appears to be insufficient. The inclusion of objective cognitive tests allowing for normative sample comparisons is needed to increase the detection of cognitive impairment in this population.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available