4.3 Article

Subjective fatigue is not associated with cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis: cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis

期刊

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
卷 15, 期 8, 页码 998-1005

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458509106213

关键词

cognition; fatigue; multiple sclerosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Studies in multiple sclerosis (MS) report conflicting conclusions regarding fatigue and cognition, which may partly be due to the use of small sample sizes and frequent reliance on a cross-sectional approach. Objective The ability to distinguish between these two disabling symptoms is necessary in order to properly assess and treat MS patients. Methods In a retrospective analysis, we assessed the correlation between fatigue and neuropsychological (NP) testing using a cross-sectional (n = 465) and longitudinal approach (n = 69). Cognition was measured using a comprehensive battery called the Minimal Assessment of Cognitive Function in MS (MACFIMS), and fatigue was measured with the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS). FSS scores were categorized as normal (<= 4.0), borderline fatigue (4 < FSS < 5.0), and fatigued (>= 5.0). Repeat assessments (n = 69) were categorized as improved or worsened by a change in FSS of either 0.5 or 1.0. Results MS patients had significantly higher FSS scores than normal controls (P < 0.001). No correlation was found between FSS and NP scores in either cross-sectional or longitudinal analyses. Fatigue was moderately correlated with depression, assessed using the Beck Depression Inventory Fast Screen (BDIFS) (r = 0.44, P < 0.001). Longitudinally, there was a medium correlation between change in FSS and BDIFS (r = 0.34, P = 0.001), but no significant differences on NP scores using either definition of change. Conclusion We conclude that self-reported fatigue, while correlated with self-reported depression, is not significantly related to cognitive capacity in MS. Multiple Sclerosis 2009; 15: 998-1005. http://msj.sagepub.com

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

4.3
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