帕金森氏病认知障碍的数字认知评估有效性的系统综述。

IF 1.4 4区 心理学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Saskia N Craig, Martin Dempster, David Curran, Aoife M Cuddihy, Nigel Lyttle
{"title":"帕金森氏病认知障碍的数字认知评估有效性的系统综述。","authors":"Saskia N Craig, Martin Dempster, David Curran, Aoife M Cuddihy, Nigel Lyttle","doi":"10.1080/23279095.2025.2454983","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Background</i></b>: Digitalization in healthcare has been extended to how we examine and manage Parkinson's Disease Mild Cognitive Impairment (PD-MCI). <b><i>Methods</i></b>: Moyer Population (those with PD and in some cases control groups), Intervention (digital cognitive test) and Outcome (validity and reliability) (PIO) and Campbell et al. Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) methods were employed. A literature search of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, OpenGrey, and ProQuest Theses and Dissertations Sources screened for articles. <b><i>Results</i></b>: The digital trail-making test (dTMT) was the most used measure. There was strong validity between the dTMT and pencil-paper TMT, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores (ranging from <i>r</i> = .55 to .90, <i>p</i> < .001). Validity between the TMT pencil-paper and digital versions were adequate (ranging from <i>r</i> = .51 to 90, <i>p</i> < .001). Reliability was demonstrated between PD and control groups' scores (ranging from <i>r =</i> .71 to .87). One study found excellent inter-rater reliability (ICC = .90 to .95). The dMoCA was the most used screen that assessed more than two cognitive domains. There was a range in the strength of agreement between digital and pencil-paper versions (ICC scores = .37 to .83) and only one study demonstrated adequate validity (<i>r</i> = .59, <i>p</i> < .001). Poor internal consistency (<i>α</i> = .54) and poor test re-test reliability (between PD and control groups' scores, <i>p</i> > .05) were found. <b><i>Conclusion</i></b>: This review found that digitalized cognitive tests are valid and reliable methods to assess PD-MCI. Considerations for future research are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":51308,"journal":{"name":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","volume":" ","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A systematic review of the effectiveness of digital cognitive assessments of cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease.\",\"authors\":\"Saskia N Craig, Martin Dempster, David Curran, Aoife M Cuddihy, Nigel Lyttle\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23279095.2025.2454983\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b><i>Background</i></b>: Digitalization in healthcare has been extended to how we examine and manage Parkinson's Disease Mild Cognitive Impairment (PD-MCI). <b><i>Methods</i></b>: Moyer Population (those with PD and in some cases control groups), Intervention (digital cognitive test) and Outcome (validity and reliability) (PIO) and Campbell et al. Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) methods were employed. A literature search of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, OpenGrey, and ProQuest Theses and Dissertations Sources screened for articles. <b><i>Results</i></b>: The digital trail-making test (dTMT) was the most used measure. There was strong validity between the dTMT and pencil-paper TMT, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores (ranging from <i>r</i> = .55 to .90, <i>p</i> < .001). Validity between the TMT pencil-paper and digital versions were adequate (ranging from <i>r</i> = .51 to 90, <i>p</i> < .001). Reliability was demonstrated between PD and control groups' scores (ranging from <i>r =</i> .71 to .87). One study found excellent inter-rater reliability (ICC = .90 to .95). The dMoCA was the most used screen that assessed more than two cognitive domains. There was a range in the strength of agreement between digital and pencil-paper versions (ICC scores = .37 to .83) and only one study demonstrated adequate validity (<i>r</i> = .59, <i>p</i> < .001). Poor internal consistency (<i>α</i> = .54) and poor test re-test reliability (between PD and control groups' scores, <i>p</i> > .05) were found. <b><i>Conclusion</i></b>: This review found that digitalized cognitive tests are valid and reliable methods to assess PD-MCI. Considerations for future research are discussed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51308,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-13\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2025.2454983\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2025.2454983","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:医疗保健中的数字化已经扩展到我们如何检查和管理帕金森病轻度认知障碍(PD-MCI)。方法:Moyer人群(PD患者和某些情况下的对照组),干预(数字认知测试)和结果(效度和信度)(PIO)和Campbell等。采用综合无meta分析(SWiM)方法。文献检索MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, OpenGrey和ProQuest论文和论文来源筛选文章。结果:数字造径测验(dTMT)是最常用的测量方法。dTMT与铅笔纸TMT、迷你精神状态检查(MMSE)和蒙特利尔认知评估(MoCA)评分之间存在很强的效度(r = 0.55 ~ 0.90, p < 0.001)。TMT铅笔纸和数字版本之间的有效性是足够的(r = 0.51至90,p < 0.001)。PD组和对照组的评分具有可靠性(r = 0.71 ~ 0.87)。一项研究发现了极好的评估者间信度(ICC = 0.90至0.95)。dMoCA是最常用的评估两个以上认知领域的屏幕。在数字版本和铅笔纸版本之间存在一定程度的一致性(ICC分数= 0.37至0.83),只有一项研究证明了足够的有效性(r = 0.59, p < .001)。PD组内部一致性差(α = 0.54),重测信度差(PD组与对照组评分比较,p < 0.05)。结论:数字化认知测试是评估PD-MCI的有效、可靠的方法。讨论了今后研究的注意事项。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A systematic review of the effectiveness of digital cognitive assessments of cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease.

Background: Digitalization in healthcare has been extended to how we examine and manage Parkinson's Disease Mild Cognitive Impairment (PD-MCI). Methods: Moyer Population (those with PD and in some cases control groups), Intervention (digital cognitive test) and Outcome (validity and reliability) (PIO) and Campbell et al. Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) methods were employed. A literature search of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, OpenGrey, and ProQuest Theses and Dissertations Sources screened for articles. Results: The digital trail-making test (dTMT) was the most used measure. There was strong validity between the dTMT and pencil-paper TMT, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores (ranging from r = .55 to .90, p < .001). Validity between the TMT pencil-paper and digital versions were adequate (ranging from r = .51 to 90, p < .001). Reliability was demonstrated between PD and control groups' scores (ranging from r = .71 to .87). One study found excellent inter-rater reliability (ICC = .90 to .95). The dMoCA was the most used screen that assessed more than two cognitive domains. There was a range in the strength of agreement between digital and pencil-paper versions (ICC scores = .37 to .83) and only one study demonstrated adequate validity (r = .59, p < .001). Poor internal consistency (α = .54) and poor test re-test reliability (between PD and control groups' scores, p > .05) were found. Conclusion: This review found that digitalized cognitive tests are valid and reliable methods to assess PD-MCI. Considerations for future research are discussed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Applied Neuropsychology-Adult
Applied Neuropsychology-Adult CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-PSYCHOLOGY
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
11.80%
发文量
134
期刊介绍: pplied Neuropsychology-Adult publishes clinical neuropsychological articles concerning assessment, brain functioning and neuroimaging, neuropsychological treatment, and rehabilitation in adults. Full-length articles and brief communications are included. Case studies of adult patients carefully assessing the nature, course, or treatment of clinical neuropsychological dysfunctions in the context of scientific literature, are suitable. Review manuscripts addressing critical issues are encouraged. Preference is given to papers of clinical relevance to others in the field. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief, and, if found suitable for further considerations are peer reviewed by independent, anonymous expert referees. All peer review is single-blind and submission is online via ScholarOne Manuscripts.
×
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