OBJECTIVE: Since a large proportion of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients exhibit cognitive deficits, it is important to have reliable and cost-effective screening measures that can be used to follow patients effectively. the objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical value of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test in detecting cognitive deficits in MS patients. METHODS: Forty-one (70.1% women, mean age 44.51 ±7.43) mildly impaired (EDSS: 2.26 ±1.87) MS patients were recruited for this study. In addition to the MoCA, they were administered the MSNQ-P (patient version) and the MSNQ-I (informant version), the bDI-FS and a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery. RESULTS: there were significant correlations between the MoCA test and the three factors derived from the neuropsychological evaluation (Executive/speed of processing, Learning, Delayed recall). the MoCA test was correlated with the MSNQ-I but only marginally with the MSNQ-P. In addition, there was no significant correlation between the MSNQ-P and the neuropsychological factors, whereas significant correlations were found between two of those factors (Learning and Delayed recall) and the MSNQ-I, suggesting that the informant version is more reliable than the patient version for the presence of cognitive deficits. CONCLUSION: the results obtained in the present study support the value of the MoCA test as a screening tool for the presence of cognitive dysfunction in MS patients, even in patients with mild functional disability (EDSS).
OBJECTIVE: Since a large proportion of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients exhibit cognitive deficits, it is important to have reliable and cost-effective screening measures that can be used to follow patients effectively. the objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical value of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test in detecting cognitive deficits in MSpatients. METHODS: Forty-one (70.1% women, mean age 44.51 ±7.43) mildly impaired (EDSS: 2.26 ±1.87) MSpatients were recruited for this study. In addition to the MoCA, they were administered the MSNQ-P (patient version) and the MSNQ-I (informant version), the bDI-FS and a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery. RESULTS: there were significant correlations between the MoCA test and the three factors derived from the neuropsychological evaluation (Executive/speed of processing, Learning, Delayed recall). the MoCA test was correlated with the MSNQ-I but only marginally with the MSNQ-P. In addition, there was no significant correlation between the MSNQ-P and the neuropsychological factors, whereas significant correlations were found between two of those factors (Learning and Delayed recall) and the MSNQ-I, suggesting that the informant version is more reliable than the patient version for the presence of cognitive deficits. CONCLUSION: the results obtained in the present study support the value of the MoCA test as a screening tool for the presence of cognitive dysfunction in MSpatients, even in patients with mild functional disability (EDSS).
Authors: Kieren A Marr; Yifei Sun; Andrej Spec; Na Lu; Anil Panackal; John Bennett; Peter Pappas; Darin Ostrander; Kausik Datta; Sean X Zhang; Peter R Williamson Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2020-01-02 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Eli K Cehelyk; Denise Y Harvey; Meghan L Grubb; Rasha Jalel; Mohammad S El-Sibai; Clyde E Markowitz; Joseph R Berger; Roy H Hamilton; Salim Chahin Journal: Mult Scler Relat Disord Date: 2018-10-27 Impact factor: 4.339
Authors: Michael P Pender; Peter A Csurhes; Corey Smith; Nanette L Douglas; Michelle A Neller; Katherine K Matthews; Leone Beagley; Sweera Rehan; Pauline Crooks; Tracey J Hopkins; Stefan Blum; Kerryn A Green; Zara A Ioannides; Andrew Swayne; Blake T Aftab; Kaye D Hooper; Scott R Burrows; Kate M Thompson; Alan Coulthard; Rajiv Khanna Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2018-11-15
Authors: D Bruno; T Torralva; V Marenco; J Torres Ardilla; S Baez; E Gleichgerrcht; V Sinay; M Roca Journal: Neurol Sci Date: 2015-06-26 Impact factor: 3.307
Authors: Hrvoje Gasparovic; Tomislav Kopjar; Milan Rados; Alan Anticevic; Marko Rados; Branko Malojcic; Visnja Ivancan; Tea Fabijanic; Maja Cikes; Davor Milicic; Vladimir Gasparovic; Bojan Biocina Journal: Trials Date: 2014-10-27 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Gloria Castellazzi; Laetitia Debernard; Tracy R Melzer; John C Dalrymple-Alford; Egidio D'Angelo; David H Miller; Claudia A M Gandini Wheeler-Kingshott; Deborah F Mason Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2018-08-20 Impact factor: 4.003