J-L Barnay1, G Wauquiez1, H Y Bonnin-Koang2, C Anquetil3, D Pérennou4, C Piscicelli5, B Lucas-Pineau6, L Muja7, E le Stunff8, X de Boissezon9, C Terracol10, M Rousseaux11, Y Bejot12, C Binquet13, D Antoine1, H Devilliers13, C Benaim14. 1. Pôle de rééducation et réadaptation, CHU de Dijon, 23, rue Gaffarel, 21079 Dijon, France. 2. Unité de rééducation neurologique, département de MPR, CHU de Nîmes, 30240 Le Grau du Roi, France. Electronic address: hueiyune.bonnin@chu-nimes.fr. 3. Unité de rééducation neurologique, département de MPR, CHU de Nîmes, 30240 Le Grau du Roi, France. 4. Clinique MPR, institut de rééducation, hôpital sud, CHU de Grenoble, BP 338, avenue de Kimberley, 38434 Échirolles, France; Laboratoire TimC CNRS, université Joseph-Fourier, Grenoble-1, 38041 Saint-Martin-d'Hères, France. Electronic address: dperennou@chu-grenoble.fr. 5. Clinique MPR, institut de rééducation, hôpital sud, CHU de Grenoble, BP 338, avenue de Kimberley, 38434 Échirolles, France. 6. CRF COS DIVIO, 12, rue Saint-Vincent-de-Paul, 21000 Dijon, France. Electronic address: blucaspineau@cos-asso.org. 7. Pôle de soins de suites et de réadaptation, centre hospitalier de Tonnerre, chemin des Jumeriaux, 89700 Tonnerre, France. Electronic address: l.muja@ch-tonnerre.fr. 8. Pôle de soins de suites et de réadaptation, centre hospitalier de Tonnerre, chemin des Jumeriaux, 89700 Tonnerre, France. 9. Pole neurosciences, CHU Purpan, place du Dr-Baylac, 31059 Toulouse, France; Inserm, imagerie cérébrale et handicaps neurologiques UMR 825, 31059 Toulouse, France; UPS, imagerie cérébrale et handicaps neurologiques UMR 825, université de Toulouse, CHU Purpan, place du Dr-Baylac, 31059 Toulouse, France. Electronic address: deboissezon.xavier@chu-toulouse.fr. 10. Pole neurosciences, CHU Purpan, place du Dr-Baylac, 31059 Toulouse, France. 11. Service de rééducation neurologique, hôpital Swynghedauw, CHRU de Lille, 59037 Lille, France. Electronic address: marc.rousseaux@chru-lille.fr. 12. Service de neurologie, CHU de Dijon, 1, boulevard Jeanne-d'Arc, 21379 Dijon, France. Electronic address: yannick.bejot@chu-dijon.fr. 13. Inserm, CIC1432, centre d'investigation clinique, module épidémiologie clinique, CHU de Dijon, 21000 Dijon, France. 14. Pôle de rééducation et réadaptation, CHU de Dijon, 23, rue Gaffarel, 21079 Dijon, France; Inserm, CIC1432, centre d'investigation clinique, module épidémiologie clinique, CHU de Dijon, 21000 Dijon, France; Inserm, U1093, 21000 Dijon, France. Electronic address: charles.benaim@chu-dijon.fr.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Post-stroke aphasia makes it difficult to assess cognitive deficiencies. We thus developed the CASP, which can be administered without using language. Our objective was to compare the feasibility of the CASP, the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in aphasic stroke patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All aphasic patients consecutively admitted to seven French rehabilitation units during a 4-month period after a recent first left hemispheric stroke were assessed with CASP, MMSE and MoCA. We determined the proportion of patients in whom it was impossible to administer at least one item from these 3 scales, and compared their administration times. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were included (age 64±15, 26 males). The CASP was impossible to administer in eight of them (18%), compared with 16 for the MMSE (36%, P=0.05) and 13 for the MoCA (30%, P=0.21, NS). It was possible to administer the CASP in all of the patients with expressive aphasia, whereas the MMSE and the MoCA could not be administered. Administration times were longer for the CASP (13±4min) than for the MMSE (8±3min, P<10(-6)) and the MoCA (11±5min, P=0.23, NS). CONCLUSION: The CASP is more feasible than the MMSE and the MoCA in aphasic stroke patients.
INTRODUCTION: Post-stroke aphasia makes it difficult to assess cognitive deficiencies. We thus developed the CASP, which can be administered without using language. Our objective was to compare the feasibility of the CASP, the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in aphasic strokepatients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All aphasic patients consecutively admitted to seven French rehabilitation units during a 4-month period after a recent first left hemispheric stroke were assessed with CASP, MMSE and MoCA. We determined the proportion of patients in whom it was impossible to administer at least one item from these 3 scales, and compared their administration times. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were included (age 64±15, 26 males). The CASP was impossible to administer in eight of them (18%), compared with 16 for the MMSE (36%, P=0.05) and 13 for the MoCA (30%, P=0.21, NS). It was possible to administer the CASP in all of the patients with expressive aphasia, whereas the MMSE and the MoCA could not be administered. Administration times were longer for the CASP (13±4min) than for the MMSE (8±3min, P<10(-6)) and the MoCA (11±5min, P=0.23, NS). CONCLUSION: The CASP is more feasible than the MMSE and the MoCA in aphasic strokepatients.
Authors: Tessa van Middelaar; Edo Richard; H Bart van der Worp; Pepijn van den Munckhof; Pythia T Nieuwkerk; Marieke C Visser; Jan Stam; Paul J Nederkoorn Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 2.474
Authors: Emma Elliott; Bogna A Drozdowska; Martin Taylor-Rowan; Robert C Shaw; Gillian Cuthbertson; Terence J Quinn Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2019-08-14
Authors: Alexandra L Terrill; Maija Reblin; Justin J MacKenzie; Brian R W Baucom; Jackie Einerson; Beth Cardell; Lorie G Richards; Jennifer J Majersik Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-05 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Miranda A Anderson; Corinne Buffo; Dana Ketcher; Hop Nguyen; Justin J MacKenzie; Maija Reblin; Alexandra L Terrill Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2022-03-01