4.4 Article

Validation of the Psychometric Hepatic Encephalopathy Score (PHES) for Identifying Patients with Minimal Hepatic Encephalopathy

期刊

DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES
卷 56, 期 10, 页码 3014-3023

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-011-1684-0

关键词

Cognition; Neuropsychological tests; PSE-syndrom test; Digit-symbol test; Number connection test; Cirrhosis; Liver failure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The psychometric hepatic encephalopathy score (PHES) is a battery of neuropsychological tests used in the diagnosis of minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE). The aim of this study was to construct and validate a dataset of normal values for the PHES. Volunteers and patients with cirrhosis with and without low-grade overt hepatic encephalopathy (OHE) were enrolled. All subjects completed the PHES battery, and possible modifying factors were assessed. Formulas to predict expected scores in cirrhotics were constructed, and MHE was diagnosed whenever a deviation of <-4 SDs occurred across the five tests. Among the 743 volunteers, age and years of education influenced the scores of all tests. Eighty-four patients with cirrhosis lacked evidence of OHE, whereas 20 had OHE: median PHES were -1 [0 to -3] and -9 [-6.5 to -11.8] (P < 0.001), respectively. Thirteen of the 84 patients (15%) with cirrhosis but without OHE had MHE. Patients with MHE were older and less educated than those without MHE (61 +/- A 8 and 52 +/- A 10 years old, P = 0.003; 7 +/- A 4 and 12 +/- A 5 years education, P = 0.002), whereas liver function was not different (MELD, 8 +/- A 5 and 8 +/- A 5). A very strong correlation between these norms and those derived from Spain was observed (r = 0.964, P < 0.001). PHES performance was mostly influenced by age and education, and expected results in cirrhotics need to be adjusted for these factors. Our validation of Mexican norms for PHES (PHES-Mex) establishes a practical method for assessing MHE and contributes to international attempts to standardize diagnostic protocols for MHE.

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