4.7 Article

Assessing Cognitive Function in Neuromuscular Diseases: A Pilot Study in a Sample of Children and Adolescents

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 10, 期 20, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10204777

关键词

neuromuscular disorders; cognitive functioning; motor functioning

资金

  1. European Reference Networkfor rare neuromuscular diseases (EURO-NMD) [739543]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to assess cognitive functioning in pediatric neuromuscular disorders (NMDs) and investigate possible associations of cognitive impairment with motor impairment, neurodevelopmental delay, and genotype. Findings showed varying levels of cognitive function and impairment across different types of NMDs in pediatric patients.
Central nervous system (CNS) involvement has been variously studied in pediatric neuromuscular disorders (NMDs). The primary goal of this study was to assess cognitive functioning in NMDs, and secondary aims were to investigate possible associations of cognitive impairment with motor impairment, neurodevelopmental delay, and genotype. This was a cross-sectional study of 43 pediatric patients, affected by six NMDs. Myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) and glycogen storage disease type 2 (GSD2) patients had a delay on the Bayley-III scales. On Wechsler scales, DMD and DM1 patients showed lower FSIQ scores, with an intellectual disability (ID) in 27% and 50%, respectively. FSIQ was normal in Becker muscular dystrophy (BMD), GSD2, and hereditary motor sensory neuropathy (HMSN) patients, while higher individual scores were found in the spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) group. In the DM1 cohort, lower FSIQ correlated with worse motor performance (rho = 0.84, p < 0.05), and delayed speech acquisition was associated with ID (p = 0.048), with worse cognitive impairment in the congenital than in the infantile form (p = 0.04). This study provides further evidence of CNS in some NMDs and reinforces the need to include cognitive assessment in protocols of care of selected pediatric NMDs.

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