3.8 Article

Association between dysarthria and cognitive impairment in ALS: A prospective study

期刊

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS
卷 11, 期 1-2, 页码 46-51

出版社

INFORMA HEALTHCARE
DOI: 10.3109/17482960903207997

关键词

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; cognitive impairment; dysarthria; bulbar onset

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several studies have demonstrated impaired cognition in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) patients, but it has been difficult to identify risk factors for this impairment. An association between cognitive changes and bulbar site of onset or dysarthria has been suggested, but the findings are variable. We tested for both associations in a large cohort of ALS patients. At the time of diagnosis of sporadic ALS, all patients (n=355) in this prospective study underwent comprehensive neuropsychological testing. In addition, a subset of 175 patients underwent a detailed assessment of dysarthria, which was quantified using the Appel ALS Score (AALSS). ALS patients with bulbar site of onset performed significantly worse than limb onset patients on a few timed ((VSAT-time, p < 0.05), (Stroop Color, p < 0.05), (Stroop Word, p < 0.05)) tests of frontal lobe functions, but the significance could not be replicated when motor impairment was accommodated into the tests ((VSAT-errors, p=0.73), (Stroop interference, p=0.08)). ALS patients with dysarthria performed significantly worse than non-dysarthrics on multiple timed ((BD, p < 0.05), (VSAT-time, p < 0.05), (Stroop Color, p < 0.05), (Stroop Word, p < 0.05), (Trails A, p < 0.05), (Trails B, p < 0.05)) neuropsychological tests, and the significance was maintained when motor impairment was accommodated into one of these tests (Stroop interference, p < 0.05). Additionally, dysarthrics performed significantly worse on two untimed measures of cognition ((Similarities, p < 0.05), (Rey Copy, p < 0.05)). Cognitive functioning in ALS does not associate with the site of onset and has a moderate association with dysarthria.

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

3.8
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