SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Correlation of MRI Visual Scales with Neuropsychological Profile in Mild Cognitive Impairment of Parkinson's Disease.

Parkinsons Dis · 2017-03-19

DOI: 10.1155/2017/7380102PMID: 28409050

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Few studies have evaluated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) visual scales in Parkinson's disease-Mild Cognitive Impairment (PD-MCI). We selected 79 PD patients and 92 controls (CO) to perform neurologic and neuropsychological evaluation. Brain MRI was performed to evaluate the following scales: Global Cortical Atrophy (GCA), Fazekas, and medial temporal atrophy (MTA). The analysis revealed that both PD groups (amnestic and nonamnestic) showed worse performance on several tests when compared to CO. Memory, executive function, and attention impairment were more severe in amnestic PD-MCI group. Overall analysis of frequency of MRI visual scales by MCI subtype did not reveal any statistically significant result. Statistically significant inverse correlation was observed between GCA scale and Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), semantic verbal fluency, Stroop test, figure memory test, trail making test (TMT) B, and Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT). The MTA scale correlated with Stroop test and Fazekas scale with figure memory test, digit span, and Stroop test according to the subgroup evaluated. Visual scales by MRI in MCI should be evaluated by cognitive domain and might be more useful in more severely impaired MCI or dementia patients.

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.