意大利版帕金森病认知评定量表(PD-CRS)的诊断和生态效度。

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Alfonsina D'Iorio, Edoardo Nicolò Aiello, Carmine Vitale, Marianna Amboni, Federico Verde, Vincenzo Silani, Nicola Ticozzi, Andrea Ciammola, Barbara Poletti, Gabriella Santangelo
{"title":"意大利版帕金森病认知评定量表(PD-CRS)的诊断和生态效度。","authors":"Alfonsina D'Iorio, Edoardo Nicolò Aiello, Carmine Vitale, Marianna Amboni, Federico Verde, Vincenzo Silani, Nicola Ticozzi, Andrea Ciammola, Barbara Poletti, Gabriella Santangelo","doi":"10.1159/000545090","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study aimed to assess the diagnostics and ecological validity of the Parkinson's Disease Cognitive Rating Scale (PD-CRS) within an Italian cohort of non-demented Parkinson's disease (PD) patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>N = 128 non-demented PD patients were administered the PD-CRS, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and Parkinson's Disease Cognitive Functioning Rating Scale (PD-CFRS). Receiver-operating characteristic analyses were performed to explore the diagnostics of both raw and adjusted PD-CRS scores, by operationalizing the positive state as a below-cut-off MoCA score. Correlational analyses were run to test the ecological validity of the PD-CRS against the PD-CFRS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both raw and adjusted PD-CRS scores accurately identified patients with a defective MoCA scores (AUC = 0.84-0.85), yielding optimal diagnostics. A cut-off of <73.93, as identified on demographically adjusted PD-CRS scores, yielded the best diagnostics (sensitivity = 0.70; specificity = 0.89; positive and negative predictive values = 0.83 and 0.79; positive and negative likelihood ratios: 6.23 and 0.37: number needed for screening utility: 0.78). The PD-CRS was related to the PD-CFRS (rs = -0.24; p = 0.018).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Italian PD-CRS is a diagnostically sound and ecologically valid screener for cognitive impairment in non-demented PD patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":11126,"journal":{"name":"Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders","volume":" ","pages":"1-5"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostics and Ecological Validity of the Italian Version of the Parkinson's Disease Cognitive Rating Scale.\",\"authors\":\"Alfonsina D'Iorio, Edoardo Nicolò Aiello, Carmine Vitale, Marianna Amboni, Federico Verde, Vincenzo Silani, Nicola Ticozzi, Andrea Ciammola, Barbara Poletti, Gabriella Santangelo\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000545090\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study aimed to assess the diagnostics and ecological validity of the Parkinson's Disease Cognitive Rating Scale (PD-CRS) within an Italian cohort of non-demented Parkinson's disease (PD) patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>N = 128 non-demented PD patients were administered the PD-CRS, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and Parkinson's Disease Cognitive Functioning Rating Scale (PD-CFRS). Receiver-operating characteristic analyses were performed to explore the diagnostics of both raw and adjusted PD-CRS scores, by operationalizing the positive state as a below-cut-off MoCA score. Correlational analyses were run to test the ecological validity of the PD-CRS against the PD-CFRS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both raw and adjusted PD-CRS scores accurately identified patients with a defective MoCA scores (AUC = 0.84-0.85), yielding optimal diagnostics. A cut-off of <73.93, as identified on demographically adjusted PD-CRS scores, yielded the best diagnostics (sensitivity = 0.70; specificity = 0.89; positive and negative predictive values = 0.83 and 0.79; positive and negative likelihood ratios: 6.23 and 0.37: number needed for screening utility: 0.78). The PD-CRS was related to the PD-CFRS (rs = -0.24; p = 0.018).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Italian PD-CRS is a diagnostically sound and ecologically valid screener for cognitive impairment in non-demented PD patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11126,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-5\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000545090\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000545090","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在评估帕金森病认知评定量表(PD- crs)在意大利非痴呆帕金森病(PD)患者队列中的诊断和生态有效性。方法:对128例非痴呆性PD患者进行PD- crs、蒙特利尔认知评估(MoCA)和帕金森病认知功能评定量表(PD- cfrs)测试。通过将阳性状态作为低于临界值的MoCA评分,进行接受者操作特征分析,以探索原始和调整PD-CRS评分的诊断。进行相关分析以检验PD-CRS与PD-CFRS的生态效度。结果:原始PD-CRS评分和调整后的PD-CRS评分均能准确识别MoCA评分有缺陷的患者(AUC= 0.84 - 0.85),提供最佳诊断。结论总结:意大利PD- crs是一种诊断合理且生态有效的非痴呆PD患者认知功能障碍筛查方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Diagnostics and Ecological Validity of the Italian Version of the Parkinson's Disease Cognitive Rating Scale.

Introduction: This study aimed to assess the diagnostics and ecological validity of the Parkinson's Disease Cognitive Rating Scale (PD-CRS) within an Italian cohort of non-demented Parkinson's disease (PD) patients.

Methods: N = 128 non-demented PD patients were administered the PD-CRS, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and Parkinson's Disease Cognitive Functioning Rating Scale (PD-CFRS). Receiver-operating characteristic analyses were performed to explore the diagnostics of both raw and adjusted PD-CRS scores, by operationalizing the positive state as a below-cut-off MoCA score. Correlational analyses were run to test the ecological validity of the PD-CRS against the PD-CFRS.

Results: Both raw and adjusted PD-CRS scores accurately identified patients with a defective MoCA scores (AUC = 0.84-0.85), yielding optimal diagnostics. A cut-off of <73.93, as identified on demographically adjusted PD-CRS scores, yielded the best diagnostics (sensitivity = 0.70; specificity = 0.89; positive and negative predictive values = 0.83 and 0.79; positive and negative likelihood ratios: 6.23 and 0.37: number needed for screening utility: 0.78). The PD-CRS was related to the PD-CFRS (rs = -0.24; p = 0.018).

Conclusions: The Italian PD-CRS is a diagnostically sound and ecologically valid screener for cognitive impairment in non-demented PD patients.

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
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: As a unique forum devoted exclusively to the study of cognitive dysfunction, ''Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders'' concentrates on Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s chorea and other neurodegenerative diseases. The journal draws from diverse related research disciplines such as psychogeriatrics, neuropsychology, clinical neurology, morphology, physiology, genetic molecular biology, pathology, biochemistry, immunology, pharmacology and pharmaceutics. Strong emphasis is placed on the publication of research findings from animal studies which are complemented by clinical and therapeutic experience to give an overall appreciation of the field.
×
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