A single Center study of the Symbol Digit Modalities test as a screening tool for cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease

IF 1.8 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Daniyell Thomason , Morganne Manuel , Shannin Moody , Jesus Lovera , Brain Copeland , Deidre Devier
{"title":"A single Center study of the Symbol Digit Modalities test as a screening tool for cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease","authors":"Daniyell Thomason ,&nbsp;Morganne Manuel ,&nbsp;Shannin Moody ,&nbsp;Jesus Lovera ,&nbsp;Brain Copeland ,&nbsp;Deidre Devier","doi":"10.1016/j.prdoa.2025.100395","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Parkinson’s Disease (PD) can include physical signs and possibly cognitive impairment, resulting from the convergence of pathological<!--> <!-->processes involving dopaminergic dysfunction, accumulation of<!--> <!-->alpha-synuclein, cholinergic deficits, and disruption of other<!--> <!-->neurotransmitter systems. We used screening tests to evaluate the<!--> <!-->characteristics of cognitive performance in patients with PD and to assess their validity compared to<!--> <!-->the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This is a natural history study of participants with PD and controls screened for possible cognitive impairment using the MoCA, Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT), and King-Devick (KD). The groups were compared on performance and then factors associated with cognitive performance (age, diagnosis, and level of education) were analyzed to determine which best predicted test scores.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>SDMT scores were lower in the PD group (Mean = 36.7 ± 12.4) compared to controls (Mean = 47.2 ± 11.0, p &lt; 0.001), but the MoCA (PD = 23.8 ± 3.5; Control = 25.5 ± 3.6, p = 0.02) and KD (PD = 70.1 ± 23.4 s; Control = 61.6 ± 17.5, p = 0.048) did not differentiate between groups after controlling for multiple comparisons. Age and diagnosis predicted SDMT raw scores and, as expected, only diagnosis remained significant after calculating T-scores based on published test norms. Age, education, and diagnosis predicted MoCA scores.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The SDMT emerged as a promising screening tool to detect cognitive impairment in PD. The test’s age and education corrected norms controlled for those variables and left diagnosis as the only predictor of performance. The MoCA scores were predicted by age, education, and diagnosis suggesting the education correction of the MoCA did not fully account for the influence of demographic variables.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":33691,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Parkinsonism Related Disorders","volume":"13 ","pages":"Article 100395"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Parkinsonism Related Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590112525000994","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Parkinson’s Disease (PD) can include physical signs and possibly cognitive impairment, resulting from the convergence of pathological processes involving dopaminergic dysfunction, accumulation of alpha-synuclein, cholinergic deficits, and disruption of other neurotransmitter systems. We used screening tests to evaluate the characteristics of cognitive performance in patients with PD and to assess their validity compared to the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA).

Methods

This is a natural history study of participants with PD and controls screened for possible cognitive impairment using the MoCA, Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT), and King-Devick (KD). The groups were compared on performance and then factors associated with cognitive performance (age, diagnosis, and level of education) were analyzed to determine which best predicted test scores.

Results

SDMT scores were lower in the PD group (Mean = 36.7 ± 12.4) compared to controls (Mean = 47.2 ± 11.0, p < 0.001), but the MoCA (PD = 23.8 ± 3.5; Control = 25.5 ± 3.6, p = 0.02) and KD (PD = 70.1 ± 23.4 s; Control = 61.6 ± 17.5, p = 0.048) did not differentiate between groups after controlling for multiple comparisons. Age and diagnosis predicted SDMT raw scores and, as expected, only diagnosis remained significant after calculating T-scores based on published test norms. Age, education, and diagnosis predicted MoCA scores.

Conclusions

The SDMT emerged as a promising screening tool to detect cognitive impairment in PD. The test’s age and education corrected norms controlled for those variables and left diagnosis as the only predictor of performance. The MoCA scores were predicted by age, education, and diagnosis suggesting the education correction of the MoCA did not fully account for the influence of demographic variables.
符号数字模态测试作为帕金森病认知障碍筛查工具的单中心研究
帕金森氏病(PD)可包括身体体征和可能的认知障碍,由涉及多巴胺能功能障碍、α -突触核蛋白积累、胆碱能缺陷和其他神经递质系统破坏的病理过程的趋同引起。我们使用筛选试验来评估帕金森病患者的认知表现特征,并将其与蒙特利尔认知评估(MoCA)相比较,评估其有效性。方法:这是一项PD患者和对照组的自然史研究,通过MoCA、符号数字模态测试(SDMT)和King-Devick (KD)筛查可能的认知障碍。比较各组的表现,然后分析与认知表现相关的因素(年龄、诊断和教育水平),以确定哪一个最能预测考试成绩。结果PD组ssdmt评分(Mean = 36.7±12.4)低于对照组(Mean = 47.2±11.0,p < 0.001),但MoCA (PD = 23.8±3.5;Control = 25.5±3.6,p = 0.02)和KD (PD = 70.1±23.4 s; Control = 61.6±17.5,p = 0.048)经多重对照后,组间无显著差异。年龄和诊断预测了SDMT的原始分数,正如预期的那样,在根据公布的测试规范计算t分数后,只有诊断仍然显著。年龄、教育程度和诊断预测MoCA评分。结论SDMT是一种很有前景的PD认知功能障碍筛查工具。测试的年龄和受教育程度校正标准控制了这些变量,并将诊断作为表现的唯一预测因素。MoCA分数是由年龄、教育程度和诊断来预测的,这表明MoCA的教育校正并没有完全考虑人口变量的影响。
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
Clinical Parkinsonism  Related Disorders
Clinical Parkinsonism Related Disorders Medicine-Neurology (clinical)
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
50
审稿时长
98 days
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信