4.5 Article

Clinical outcomes and cognitive impairments between progressive supranuclear palsy and multiple system atrophy

期刊

BRAIN AND BEHAVIOR
卷 12, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/brb3.2827

关键词

cognitive impairments; multiple system atrophy; progressive supranuclear palsy; the mini-mental state examination; the Montreal Cognitive Assessment

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation [821722820]
  2. Science and Technology Project of Tianjin Municipal Health and Health Committee [ZC20121, KJ20048]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared clinical outcomes and cognitive impairments between PSP and MSA. The results showed differences in clinical outcomes and cognitive function between PSP and MSA-P patients, with PSP patients having more severe cognitive deficits. The MMSE and MoCA scores can be used as indicators to distinguish MSA-P from PSP.
BackgroundBoth progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) and multiple system atrophy (MSA) belong to atypical parkinsonian syndromes. It is important to differentiate these diseases accurately. We compared clinical outcomes and cognitive impairments between PSP and MSA. MethodsEighty-five MSA parkinsonism type (MSA-P) patients and 76 PSP patients participated in this research. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the mini-mental state examination (MMSE) evaluated cognitive function. ResultsMSA-P patients had a significantly higher incidence of dyskinesia, fall, urinary symptoms, and constipation, whereas patients with PSP had a higher incidence of tremor and salivation. MSA-P patients had higher MMSE and MoCA scores than PSP patients. The MMSE score showed a diagnostic cut-off score of 24.5 in PSP versus MSA-P. The MoCA score showed a diagnostic cut-off score of 20.5 in PSP versus MSA-P. ConclusionIn conclusion, patients with PSP had differences in the clinical outcomes and cognitive impairments compared with MSA-P patients. PSP patients had more severe cognitive deficits. The score of MMSE and MoCA could be used in distinguishing MSA-P from PSP.

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

4.5
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