4.4 Article

Evaluation of cognitive function in systemic sclerosis patients: a pilot study

期刊

CLINICAL RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 39, 期 5, 页码 1551-1559

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s10067-019-04884-9

关键词

Cognitive dysfunction; Event-related potentials; Systemic sclerosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To investigate cognitive dysfunction in adult patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) who had no known clinical neurological manifestations and to relate it with other disease severity parameters. Methods In the present study, 20 SSc consecutive female patients, who met the 2013 American College of Rheumatology SSc criteria, were compared with 20 healthy age-, gender-, and educational status-matched volunteer hospital workers. Mean age and duration of illness were 41.8 +/- 12.52 and 6.9 +/- 5.4 years respectively. Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Wechsler Adult Intelligence scale (WAIS-III), and P300 component of event-related potentials (ERPs) were used to evaluate cognitive function in SS subjectively and objectively respectively. Results Sixty-five percent (13 out of 20) of SSc patients had MMSE score < 25, and cognitive impairment. Despite the lack of clinically apparent neurological manifestations, SSc patients had significantly low MMSE score, high Deterioration Index (DI), and prolonged P300 latency compared with that of the control group (P = 0.0001; 0.010 and 0.008 respectively). A significant positive association was found between (DI) and the Medsger severity vascular score (r = 0.518; P = 0.012). There were few differences between limited and diffuse SSc. Conclusions To our knowledge, few studies highlighted that subclinical cognitive impairment can occur in the course of SSc disease. Early diagnosis of cognitive impairment should be investigated either subjectively (using psychometrics tests as MMSE or WAIS-III) or objectively using P300 evoked related potentials. Medsger severity vascular score seems to be closely related to cognitive impairment.

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

4.4
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