3.8 Article

The utility of computerized neuropsychological assessment of cognitive dysfunction in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

期刊

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 119-127

出版社

ARNOLD, HODDER HEADLINE PLC
DOI: 10.1191/1352458503ms893oa

关键词

automated assessment; cognition; cognitive dysfunction; computerized neuropsychological assessment; multiple sclerosis; prediction of cognitive impairment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Traditional paper-and-pencil neuropsychological batteries used to document cognitive deficits in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients lack timing precision. This makes it difficult to accurately measure psychomotor slowing, a central cognitive symptom of MS. Additionally, traditional batteries lack multiple alternate forms necessary to control for practice effects when assessing cognition over time. Finally, such batteries are lengthy and expensive. Computerized neuropsychological batteries address many of these shortcomings. They measure response time more precisely, require less administration time, include alternate forms, and are ideal for rapid screening/triage. Although there are normative data on the reliability and validity of computerized measures, there have been no controlled validation studies with MS patients. The current study was designed to validate a computerized neuropsychological battery (ANAM) for use with relapsingremitting (RR) MS patients. Prior to initiation of interferon-beta-1a (Avonex) treatment, subjects participated in a neuropsychological evaluation consisting of traditional and computerized measures. Moderate-to-high correlations were found between computerized and traditional measures. Computerized tests accurately predicted performance on key traditional tests. The battery was also concordant with traditional measures in identifying RR MS patients with and without neurocognitive impairment. Findings are discussed with respect to increased accuracy and accessibility of neuropsychological evaluations for MS patients.

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