Taylor R Hendershott1, Delphine Zhu2, Seoni Llanes2, Cyrus P Zabetian3,4, Joseph Quinn5, Karen L Edwards6, James B Leverenz7, Thomas Montine8, Brenna Cholerton2, Kathleen L Poston2,9. 1. Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. 2. Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA. 3. Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington, USA. 4. Department of Neurology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA. 5. Department of Neurology, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, Oregon, USA. 6. Department of Epidemiology, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, Irvine, California, USA. 7. Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 8. Department of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA. 9. Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinicians and researchers commonly use global cognitive assessments to screen for impairment. Currently there are no published studies directly comparing the sensitivity and specificity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Mattis Dementia Rating Scale-2 in PD. The objective of this study was to identify the relative sensitivity and specificity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Mattis Dementia Rating Scale-2 in PD. METHODS: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Mattis Dementia Rating Scale-2 were administered to training and validation cohorts. Cutoff scores were determined within the training cohort (n = 85) to optimize sensitivity and specificity for cognitive impairment and were applied to an independent validation cohort (n = 521). RESULTS: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment was consistently sensitive across training and validation cohorts (90.0% and 80.3%, respectively), whereas the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale-2 was not (87.5% and 60.3%, respectively). In individual domains, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment remained sensitive to memory and visuospatial impairments (91.9% and 87.8%, respectively), whereas the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale-2 was sensitive to executive impairments (86.2%). CONCLUSION: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Mattis Dementia Rating Scale-2 demonstrated individual strengths. Future work should focus on developing domain-specific cognitive screening tools for PD.
BACKGROUND: Clinicians and researchers commonly use global cognitive assessments to screen for impairment. Currently there are no published studies directly comparing the sensitivity and specificity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Mattis Dementia Rating Scale-2 in PD. The objective of this study was to identify the relative sensitivity and specificity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Mattis Dementia Rating Scale-2 in PD. METHODS: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Mattis Dementia Rating Scale-2 were administered to training and validation cohorts. Cutoff scores were determined within the training cohort (n = 85) to optimize sensitivity and specificity for cognitive impairment and were applied to an independent validation cohort (n = 521). RESULTS: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment was consistently sensitive across training and validation cohorts (90.0% and 80.3%, respectively), whereas the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale-2 was not (87.5% and 60.3%, respectively). In individual domains, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment remained sensitive to memory and visuospatial impairments (91.9% and 87.8%, respectively), whereas the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale-2 was sensitive to executive impairments (86.2%). CONCLUSION: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Mattis Dementia Rating Scale-2 demonstrated individual strengths. Future work should focus on developing domain-specific cognitive screening tools for PD.
Authors: Ziad S Nasreddine; Natalie A Phillips; Valérie Bédirian; Simon Charbonneau; Victor Whitehead; Isabelle Collin; Jeffrey L Cummings; Howard Chertkow Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Breda Cullen; Brian O'Neill; Jonathan J Evans; Robert F Coen; Brian A Lawlor Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2006-12-18 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Ondrej Bezdicek; Jiri Michalec; Tomas Nikolai; Petra Havránková; Jan Roth; Robert Jech; Evžen Růžička Journal: Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 2.959
Authors: Pietro Tiraboschi; David P Salmon; Lawrence A Hansen; Richard C Hofstetter; Leon J Thal; Jody Corey-Bloom Journal: Brain Date: 2006-01-09 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: J C Dalrymple-Alford; M R MacAskill; C T Nakas; L Livingston; C Graham; G P Crucian; T R Melzer; J Kirwan; R Keenan; S Wells; R J Porter; R Watts; T J Anderson Journal: Neurology Date: 2010-11-09 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Liana S Rosenthal; Daniel Drake; Roy N Alcalay; Debra Babcock; F DuBois Bowman; Alice Chen-Plotkin; Ted M Dawson; Richard B Dewey; Dwight C German; Xuemei Huang; Barry Landin; Matthew McAuliffe; Vladislav A Petyuk; Clemens R Scherzer; Coryse St Hillaire-Clarke; Beth-Anne Sieber; Margaret Sutherland; Chi Tarn; Andrew West; David Vaillancourt; Jing Zhang; Katrina Gwinn Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2015-10-07 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Matej Skorvanek; Jennifer G Goldman; Marjan Jahanshahi; Connie Marras; Irena Rektorova; Ben Schmand; Erik van Duijn; Christopher G Goetz; Daniel Weintraub; Glenn T Stebbins; Pablo Martinez-Martin Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2017-11-23 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Pardis Zarifkar; Jeehyun Kim; Christian La; Kai Zhang; Sophie YorkWilliams; Taylor F Levine; Lu Tian; Per Borghammer; Kathleen L Poston Journal: Parkinsonism Relat Disord Date: 2021-01-12 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Eileen Gülke; Mohammad Alsalem; Maja Kirsten; Eik Vettorazzi; Chi-Un Choe; Ute Hidding; Simone Zittel-Dirks; Carsten Buhmann; Miriam Schaper; Alessandro Gulberti; Christian K E Moll; Wolfgang Hamel; Johannes Koeppen; Christian Gerloff; Monika Pötter-Nerger Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-04-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Edward N Wilson; Michelle S Swarovski; Patricia Linortner; Marian Shahid; Abigail J Zuckerman; Qian Wang; Divya Channappa; Paras S Minhas; Siddhita D Mhatre; Edward D Plowey; Joseph F Quinn; Cyrus P Zabetian; Lu Tian; Frank M Longo; Brenna Cholerton; Thomas J Montine; Kathleen L Poston; Katrin I Andreasson Journal: Brain Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Patricia Linortner; Colin McDaniel; Marian Shahid; Taylor F Levine; Lu Tian; Brenna Cholerton; Kathleen L Poston Journal: Mov Disord Clin Pract Date: 2020-04-30