Development of a diagnostic checklist to identify functional cognitive disorder versus other neurocognitive disorders.

IF 2.1 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
BMJ Neurology Open Pub Date : 2025-02-27 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1136/bmjno-2024-000918
Verónica Cabreira, Jane Alty, Sonja Antic, Rui Araujo, Selma Aybek, Harriet A Ball, Gaston Baslet, Rohan Bhome, Jan Coebergh, Bruno Dubois, Mark Edwards, Sasa R Filipovic, Kristian Steen Frederiksen, Thomas Harbo, Bradleigh Hayhow, Robert Howard, Jonathan Huntley, Jeremy Darryl Isaacs, Curt LaFrance, Andrew Larner, Francesco Di Lorenzo, James Main, Elizabeth Mallam, Camillo Marra, João Massano, Emer R McGrath, Isabel Portela Moreira, Flavio Nobili, Suvankar Pal, Catherine M Pennington, Miguel Tábuas-Pereira, David Perez, Stoyan Popkirov, Dane Rayment, Martin Rossor, Mirella Russo, Isabel Santana, Jonathan Schott, Emmi P Scott, Ricardo Taipa, Tiago Teodoro, Michele Tinazzi, Svetlana Tomic, Sofia Toniolo, Caroline Winther Tørring, Tim Wilkinson, Martin Zeidler, Lisbeth Frostholm, Laura McWhirter, Jon Stone, Alan Carson
{"title":"Development of a diagnostic checklist to identify functional cognitive disorder versus other neurocognitive disorders.","authors":"Verónica Cabreira, Jane Alty, Sonja Antic, Rui Araujo, Selma Aybek, Harriet A Ball, Gaston Baslet, Rohan Bhome, Jan Coebergh, Bruno Dubois, Mark Edwards, Sasa R Filipovic, Kristian Steen Frederiksen, Thomas Harbo, Bradleigh Hayhow, Robert Howard, Jonathan Huntley, Jeremy Darryl Isaacs, Curt LaFrance, Andrew Larner, Francesco Di Lorenzo, James Main, Elizabeth Mallam, Camillo Marra, João Massano, Emer R McGrath, Isabel Portela Moreira, Flavio Nobili, Suvankar Pal, Catherine M Pennington, Miguel Tábuas-Pereira, David Perez, Stoyan Popkirov, Dane Rayment, Martin Rossor, Mirella Russo, Isabel Santana, Jonathan Schott, Emmi P Scott, Ricardo Taipa, Tiago Teodoro, Michele Tinazzi, Svetlana Tomic, Sofia Toniolo, Caroline Winther Tørring, Tim Wilkinson, Martin Zeidler, Lisbeth Frostholm, Laura McWhirter, Jon Stone, Alan Carson","doi":"10.1136/bmjno-2024-000918","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Functional cognitive disorder (FCD) poses a diagnostic challenge due to its resemblance to other neurocognitive disorders and limited biomarker accuracy. We aimed to develop a new diagnostic checklist to identify FCD versus other neurocognitive disorders.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The clinical checklist was developed through mixed methods: (1) a literature review, (2) a three-round Delphi study with 45 clinicians from 12 countries and (3) a pilot discriminative accuracy study in consecutive patients attending seven memory services across the UK. Items gathering consensus were incorporated into a pilot checklist. Item redundancy was evaluated with phi coefficients. A briefer checklist was produced by removing items with >10% missing data. Internal validity was tested using Cronbach's alpha. Optimal cut-off scores were determined using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A full 11-item checklist and a 7-item briefer checklist were produced. Overall, 239 patients (143 FCD, 96 non-FCD diagnoses) were included. The checklist scores were significantly different across subgroups (FCD and other neurocognitive disorders) (F(2, 236)=313.3, p<0.001). The area under the curve was excellent for both the full checklist (0.97, 95% CI 0.95 to 0.99) and its brief version (0.96, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.98). Optimal cut-off scores corresponded to a specificity of 97% and positive predictive value of 91% for identifying FCD. Both versions showed good internal validity (>0.80).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This pilot study shows that a brief clinical checklist may serve as a quick complementary tool to differentiate patients with neurodegeneration from those with FCD. Prospective blind large-scale validation in diverse populations is warranted.Cite Now.</p>","PeriodicalId":52754,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Neurology Open","volume":"7 1","pages":"e000918"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11873336/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Neurology Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjno-2024-000918","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Functional cognitive disorder (FCD) poses a diagnostic challenge due to its resemblance to other neurocognitive disorders and limited biomarker accuracy. We aimed to develop a new diagnostic checklist to identify FCD versus other neurocognitive disorders.

Methods: The clinical checklist was developed through mixed methods: (1) a literature review, (2) a three-round Delphi study with 45 clinicians from 12 countries and (3) a pilot discriminative accuracy study in consecutive patients attending seven memory services across the UK. Items gathering consensus were incorporated into a pilot checklist. Item redundancy was evaluated with phi coefficients. A briefer checklist was produced by removing items with >10% missing data. Internal validity was tested using Cronbach's alpha. Optimal cut-off scores were determined using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.

Results: A full 11-item checklist and a 7-item briefer checklist were produced. Overall, 239 patients (143 FCD, 96 non-FCD diagnoses) were included. The checklist scores were significantly different across subgroups (FCD and other neurocognitive disorders) (F(2, 236)=313.3, p<0.001). The area under the curve was excellent for both the full checklist (0.97, 95% CI 0.95 to 0.99) and its brief version (0.96, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.98). Optimal cut-off scores corresponded to a specificity of 97% and positive predictive value of 91% for identifying FCD. Both versions showed good internal validity (>0.80).

Conclusions: This pilot study shows that a brief clinical checklist may serve as a quick complementary tool to differentiate patients with neurodegeneration from those with FCD. Prospective blind large-scale validation in diverse populations is warranted.Cite Now.

建立功能性认知障碍与其他神经认知障碍的诊断检查表。
背景:功能性认知障碍(FCD)由于其与其他神经认知障碍的相似性和有限的生物标志物准确性,给诊断带来了挑战。我们的目标是开发一种新的诊断清单来识别FCD与其他神经认知障碍。方法:临床检查表是通过混合方法开发的:(1)文献综述,(2)来自12个国家的45名临床医生进行三轮德尔菲研究,(3)在英国连续参加7个记忆服务的患者中进行判别准确性试验研究。收集协商一致意见的项目被纳入试点核对表。用phi系数评价项目冗余度。一个更简短的检查表是通过删除丢失数据约10%的项目生成的。内部效度采用Cronbach’s alpha检验。采用受试者工作特征曲线分析确定最佳临界值。结果:制作了完整的11项检查表和7项简要检查表。总共纳入239例患者(143例FCD, 96例非FCD诊断)。检查表得分在亚组间(FCD和其他神经认知障碍)有显著差异(F(2,236)=313.3, p0.80)。结论:这项初步研究表明,简短的临床检查表可以作为区分神经退行性疾病患者和FCD患者的快速补充工具。在不同人群中进行前瞻性盲大规模验证是必要的。现在引用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Neurology Open
BMJ Neurology Open Medicine-Neurology (clinical)
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
3.70%
发文量
46
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信