Utility of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale and INECO Frontal Screening for differentiating dementia subtypes between Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease dementia.

IF 2.8 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES
Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports Pub Date : 2025-04-17 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1177/25424823251335193
Gregory Brown, Diego Bustamante-Paytan, María Fe Albujar Pereira, Jose Huilca, Katherine Agüero, Graciet Verastegui, Zadith Yauri, Rosa Montesinos, Nilton Custodio
{"title":"Utility of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale and INECO Frontal Screening for differentiating dementia subtypes between Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease dementia.","authors":"Gregory Brown, Diego Bustamante-Paytan, María Fe Albujar Pereira, Jose Huilca, Katherine Agüero, Graciet Verastegui, Zadith Yauri, Rosa Montesinos, Nilton Custodio","doi":"10.1177/25424823251335193","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Time to dementia diagnosis is a major barrier to effective care, particularly in resource-limited settings such as Latin America. Barriers to timely dementia diagnosis include the lack of access to comprehensive neuropsychological testing, cognitive specialists, and advanced diagnostic tools. Brief cognitive assessments, such as the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) and INECO Frontal Screening (IFS) offer promise for diverse populations, and may help in specific dementia subtypes, including Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study evaluates the efficacy of RUDAS and IFS in comparison to the Mini-Mental Status Exam (MMSE).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 243 participants (70 normal cognition Controls, 62 PD with normal cognition, 46 PDD, and 75 AD) were recruited as part of an observational cross-sectional study at a cognitive clinic in Peru. Diagnosis was based on clinical criteria and confirmed with a comprehensive neuropsychological battery. Participants underwent cognitive assessment using RUDAS, IFS, and MMSE.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both RUDAS and IFS differentiated dementia from normal cognition groups with 100% specificity, compared to 53% for MMSE. The IFS identified early cognitive changes in PD (median score: PD = 24; Controls = 27, p < 0.001). RUDAS was particularly effective in distinguishing AD and PDD using the memory and visuospatial tasks.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These results suggest that RUDAS and IFS can enable faster and clearer diagnoses for dementia subtypes, offering clinicians and community health workers practical tools to improve care in resource-limited settings where comprehensive evaluations are not always feasible.</p>","PeriodicalId":73594,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports","volume":"9 ","pages":"25424823251335193"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12033470/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/25424823251335193","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Time to dementia diagnosis is a major barrier to effective care, particularly in resource-limited settings such as Latin America. Barriers to timely dementia diagnosis include the lack of access to comprehensive neuropsychological testing, cognitive specialists, and advanced diagnostic tools. Brief cognitive assessments, such as the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) and INECO Frontal Screening (IFS) offer promise for diverse populations, and may help in specific dementia subtypes, including Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD).

Objective: This study evaluates the efficacy of RUDAS and IFS in comparison to the Mini-Mental Status Exam (MMSE).

Methods: A total of 243 participants (70 normal cognition Controls, 62 PD with normal cognition, 46 PDD, and 75 AD) were recruited as part of an observational cross-sectional study at a cognitive clinic in Peru. Diagnosis was based on clinical criteria and confirmed with a comprehensive neuropsychological battery. Participants underwent cognitive assessment using RUDAS, IFS, and MMSE.

Results: Both RUDAS and IFS differentiated dementia from normal cognition groups with 100% specificity, compared to 53% for MMSE. The IFS identified early cognitive changes in PD (median score: PD = 24; Controls = 27, p < 0.001). RUDAS was particularly effective in distinguishing AD and PDD using the memory and visuospatial tasks.

Conclusions: These results suggest that RUDAS and IFS can enable faster and clearer diagnoses for dementia subtypes, offering clinicians and community health workers practical tools to improve care in resource-limited settings where comprehensive evaluations are not always feasible.

罗兰通用痴呆评估量表和INECO额叶筛查在区分阿尔茨海默病和帕金森病痴呆亚型中的应用
背景:痴呆诊断时间是有效护理的主要障碍,特别是在拉丁美洲等资源有限的环境中。及时诊断痴呆症的障碍包括缺乏全面的神经心理测试、认知专家和先进的诊断工具。简短的认知评估,如罗兰通用痴呆评估量表(RUDAS)和INECO额叶筛查(IFS)为不同的人群提供了希望,并可能有助于特定的痴呆亚型,包括阿尔茨海默病(AD)和帕金森病痴呆(PDD)。目的:本研究评价RUDAS和IFS与简易精神状态测验(MMSE)的疗效。方法:共有243名参与者(70名认知正常对照,62名认知正常的PD, 46名PDD和75名AD)在秘鲁的一家认知诊所被招募作为观察性横断面研究的一部分。诊断以临床标准为基础,并经综合神经心理学检查证实。参与者使用RUDAS、IFS和MMSE进行认知评估。结果:RUDAS和IFS将痴呆与正常认知组区分的特异性均为100%,而MMSE的特异性为53%。IFS识别出PD的早期认知改变(中位评分:PD = 24;结论:这些结果表明,RUDAS和IFS可以更快、更清晰地诊断痴呆症亚型,为临床医生和社区卫生工作者提供实用工具,以改善资源有限环境下的护理,在这些环境中,综合评估并不总是可行的。
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
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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