3.8 Article

Screening for Impaired Cognitive Domains in a Large Parkinson's Disease Population and Its Application to the Diagnostic Procedure for Parkinson's Disease Dementia

Journal

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000362124

Keywords

Parkinson's disease; Dementia; Cognitive domain; Executive function; Mini Mental State Examination; Montreal Cognitive Assessment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Dementia is a new focus of research on improved treatment for Parkinson's disease (PD). In 2007, a screening tool for PD dementia (PD-D) was developed by the Movement Disorder Society (Level I testing), which still requires verification by a large population study. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional and multicenter study including 13 institutions administering the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) to 304 PD patients (mean age: 70.6 +/- 8.3 years; mean Hoehn and Yahr stage: 2.7 +/- 0.7). Results: In all, 34.5% of the patients had MMSE scores <26; 94.3% of these patients had impairments in >= 2 cognitive domains and met the criteria for probable PD-D by Level I testing. Executive dysfunction combined with attention and memory impairment was most common (51.4%). In the Level I subtests of executive function, the score for phonemic fluency declined by <50% in patients with high MoCA scores (24-30 points) and lacked specificity for PD-D. No patient had visuospatial impairment (measured by the pentagon copying subtest) alone, and the score for pentagon copying stayed at >= 70% even in patients with low MMSE scores (12-25 points), therefore lacking sensitivity for PD-D. Conclusions: Level I testing with administration of the MMSE and MoCA is a practical and efficient screening tool for PD-D. However, the phonemic fluency and pentagon copying tests should be replaced by more specific/sensitive ones when screening for PD-D. (C) 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available