4.7 Article

Measuring disease progression in corticobasal syndrome

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
卷 261, 期 8, 页码 1598-1605

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-014-7389-5

关键词

Corticobasal syndrome; Disease progression; Clinicopathological correlation; Functional rating scale; Addenbrooke's cognitive examination-revised

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Corticobasal syndrome (CBS) is a complex neurodegenerative disorder with marked clinical, neuropsychological, and pathological heterogeneity. Measurement of disease progression in CBS is complex and little understood. This study aimed to establish clinical and neuropsychological indicators of prognosis in CBS. Patients with CBS were retrospectively recruited from a frontotemporal dementia specific research clinic. All patients underwent detailed clinical and neuropsychological testing including the frontotemporal dementia rating scale (FRS). Using the differences in FRS logit scores over a period of 12 months, CBS patients were divided into rapid and slow progressor groups. Demographic, clinical and neuropsychological features were compared between the two groups. Sixteen participants who met defined criteria were included (9 males, 7 females; mean age 65.8 +/- A 22 years; median symptom duration 51.8 +/- A 22 years; mean duration of follow-up 11.4 +/- A 2.8 months). There were no significant differences between the rapid and slow progressors in age, gender, symptom duration, motor/cognitive presentation, and ACE-R scores at baseline. Clinically, slow progressors were significantly more likely to have a motor speech disorder, with a trend for more frequent dysgraphia, whereas rapid progressors were more likely to exhibit surface dyslexia. Rapid and slow progressor groups did not differ on neuropsychological performance. The presence of motor speech disorder, dysgraphia, and surface dyslexia may be useful in differentiating patients with rapid progression of CBS from those with a more indolent disease course.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据