Martin Fischer1, Annett Kunkel2, Peter Bublak3, Jürgen H Faiss2, Frank Hoffmann4, Michael Sailer5, Matthias Schwab3, Uwe K Zettl6, Wolfgang Köhler7. 1. Department of Neurology, Fachkrankenhaus Hubertusburg, 04779 Wermsdorf, Germany. Electronic address: martin.fischer@sanktgeorg.de. 2. Department of Neurology, Asklepios Fachkliniken Brandenburg GmbH, Teupitz, Germany. 3. Department of Neurology, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Jena, Germany. 4. Department of Neurology, Krankenhaus Martha-Maria Halle-Doelau gGmbH, Halle, Germany. 5. Department of Neurology, Otto-von-Guericke University, Magdeburg, Germany. 6. Department of Neurology, Universitätsklinikum Rostock, Rostock, Germany. 7. Department of Neurology, Fachkrankenhaus Hubertusburg, Wermsdorf, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prevalence rates of cognitive impairment (CI) in multiple sclerosis (MS) vary between 40% and 80%. Differences in classification criteria for CI may explain this variance. OBJECTIVE: This study reviewed and compared classification criteria for CI in patients with early and late MS. METHODS: The paper consists of two parts: a systematic review of published classification criteria and the presentation of new data. Criteria were reviewed in respect to percentage of abnormal parameters and cut-offs concerning standard deviations. Thereafter, criteria were applied to cognitive data of 25 patients with early MS (duration ≤ 2 y), 52 matched patients with late MS (≥ 12 y), and 75 matched controls. The test battery assessed alertness, divided attention, mental flexibility, verbal and visual learning, memory, and visuospatial abilities. RESULTS: Seventy classification criteria were revealed and grouped into 20 distinct approaches that can be subdivided into three basic classification strategies. Most commonly, CI was defined as performing 1.5 SD or 2 SD below the normative mean in 18-30% of test parameters (n=42). Other criteria utilized cognitive domains (n=6), composite indices (n=8), or combinations of cut-offs and strategies. The stringency of the criteria was correlated with the prevalence rate of CI (r=-.43) and disease duration (r=.48). In the new data, a substantial effect of classification criteria was found with a prevalence rate ranging from 0 to 68% in early and 4 to 81% in late MS. Increased rates of CI in patients vs. controls were found following 18 out of 20 criteria in the sample of late MS. In early MS, an increased rate of CI was only found following a liberal 1.5 SD cut-off criterion. Inter-rater reliability between all criteria was moderate. However, between criteria of comparable stringency the inter-rater reliability was found to be strong. CONCLUSION: Classification based on different published criteria is not fully comparable and criteria need to be better homogenized.
BACKGROUND: Prevalence rates of cognitive impairment (CI) in multiple sclerosis (MS) vary between 40% and 80%. Differences in classification criteria for CI may explain this variance. OBJECTIVE: This study reviewed and compared classification criteria for CI in patients with early and late MS. METHODS: The paper consists of two parts: a systematic review of published classification criteria and the presentation of new data. Criteria were reviewed in respect to percentage of abnormal parameters and cut-offs concerning standard deviations. Thereafter, criteria were applied to cognitive data of 25 patients with early MS (duration ≤ 2 y), 52 matched patients with late MS (≥ 12 y), and 75 matched controls. The test battery assessed alertness, divided attention, mental flexibility, verbal and visual learning, memory, and visuospatial abilities. RESULTS: Seventy classification criteria were revealed and grouped into 20 distinct approaches that can be subdivided into three basic classification strategies. Most commonly, CI was defined as performing 1.5 SD or 2 SD below the normative mean in 18-30% of test parameters (n=42). Other criteria utilized cognitive domains (n=6), composite indices (n=8), or combinations of cut-offs and strategies. The stringency of the criteria was correlated with the prevalence rate of CI (r=-.43) and disease duration (r=.48). In the new data, a substantial effect of classification criteria was found with a prevalence rate ranging from 0 to 68% in early and 4 to 81% in late MS. Increased rates of CI in patients vs. controls were found following 18 out of 20 criteria in the sample of late MS. In early MS, an increased rate of CI was only found following a liberal 1.5 SD cut-off criterion. Inter-rater reliability between all criteria was moderate. However, between criteria of comparable stringency the inter-rater reliability was found to be strong. CONCLUSION: Classification based on different published criteria is not fully comparable and criteria need to be better homogenized.
Authors: Katherine A Buzzard; Stephen W Reddel; Con Yiannikas; D Sean Riminton; Michael H Barnett; Todd A Hardy Journal: J Neurol Date: 2014-12-30 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Nadina B Lincoln; Lucy E Bradshaw; Cris S Constantinescu; Florence Day; Avril Er Drummond; Deborah Fitzsimmons; Shaun Harris; Alan A Montgomery; Roshan das Nair Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Adriana M Pietsch; Andrea Viehöver; Ricarda Diem; Markus Weiler; Mirjam Korporal-Kuhnke; Brigitte Wildemann; Georges Sam; John M Hayes; Olivia Fösleitner; Johann M E Jende; Sabine Heiland; Martin Bendszus; Jennifer C Hayes Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2022-10-20 Impact factor: 3.156
Authors: W O Tobin; B F Popescu; V Lowe; I Pirko; J E Parisi; K Kantarci; J A Fields; M B Bruns; B F Boeve; C F Lucchinetti Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2015-10-07 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Christoph Mueller; Lisa Langenbruch; Johanna M H Rau; Tobias Brix; Christine Strippel; Andre Dik; Kristin S Golombeck; Constanze Mönig; Andreas Johnen; Saskia Räuber; Heinz Wiendl; Sven G Meuth; Jens Bölte; Stjepana Kovac; Nico Melzer Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2022-05-16 Impact factor: 3.448
Authors: Francesco Patti; Manuela De Stefano; Luigi Lavorgna; Silvia Messina; Clara Grazia Chisari; Domenico Ippolito; Roberta Lanzillo; Veria Vacchiano; Sabrina Realmuto; Paola Valentino; Gabriella Coniglio; Maria Buccafusca; Damiano Paolicelli; Alessandro D'Ambrosio; Patrizia Montella; Vincenzo Brescia Morra; Giovanni Savettieri; Bruno Alfano; Antonio Gallo; Isabella Simone; Rosa Viterbo; Mario Zappia; Simona Bonavita; Gioacchino Tedeschi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Annett Kunkel; Martin Fischer; Judith Faiss; Doreen Dähne; Wolfgang Köhler; Jürgen H Faiss Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2015-05-11 Impact factor: 4.003