SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Specificity of cognitive impairment in neurological disease: a methodological critique of Parkinson's disease.

Behav Neurol · 1991-01-01

DOI: 10.3233/ben-1991-4205PMID: 24487439

Check source for accessJournal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Multiple cognitive deficits have been recognized in many neurological disorders but the specificity of the findings and the relationship to the underlying neuropathology remain obscure. Definitions of dementia have been proposed based on symptom profiles of the cognitive disorder and qualitative differences have been claimed between dementias of different aetiology. Some conditions have been claimed to show patterns of cognitive deficit that are distinguished from dementia and related to specific neuropathology or psychological processes, e.g. frontal lobe deficits in Parkinson's disease. Sometimes, a relationship has been established between certain cognitive deficits and particular neurochemical deficits which has led to the notion of specific drug treatment, e.g. cholinergic deficits and memory failure in Alzheimer's disease. However, these conclusions are often potentially flawed by methodological inadequacies. This critique presents some methodological issues relevant to the study of brain-behaviour and drug-behaviour relationships in syndromes of multiple cognitive deficit, using Parkinson's disease as the model. The following recommendations are made: rigid diagnostic criteria; representative patient groups; avoidance of arbitrary quantitative criteria to limit definitions of dementia; matching of groups for overall level of cognitive impairment in the search for qualitative cognitive differences related to neuropathology or effects of particular drugs; the use of suitable controls in patient groups, neuropsychological tests and treatment regimes; the use of specific quantitative tests of cognition, affect and motor disability; and longitudinal, compared with cross-sectional, study design.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.