SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-Revised is accurate for detecting dementia in Parkinson's disease patients with low educational level.

Dement Neuropsychol · 2014-01-01

DOI: 10.1590/s1980-57642014dn81000004PMID: 29213875

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

Diagnosis of Parkinson's disease dementia is a challenge in clinical settings. A comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation is time-consuming and expensive; brief instruments for cognitive evaluation must be easier to administer and provide a reliable classification.ObjectiveTo study the validity of the Brazilian version of Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-Revised (ACE-R) for the cognitive assessment of Parkinson's disease (PD) patients with heterogeneous educational level.MethodsPatients were evaluated according to the diagnostic procedures recommended by the Movement Disorder Society (MDS) as the gold standard for the diagnosis of dementia in PD.ResultsWe studied 70 idiopathic PD patients, with a mean (SD) age of 64.1 (9.3) years and mean disease duration of 7.7 (5.3) years and educational level of 5.9 years, matched for education and age to controls. Twenty-seven patients fulfilled MDS clinical criteria for PD dementia. Mean scores on the ACE-R were 54.7 (12.8) points for patients with PD dementia, 76 (9.9) for PD patients without dementia and 79.7 (1.8) points for healthy controls. The area under the receiver operating curve, taking the MDS diagnostic procedures as a reference, was 0.93 [95% CI, 0.87-0.98; pConclusionACE-R appears to be a valid tool for dementia evaluation in PD patients with heterogeneous educational level, displaying good correlation with clinical criteria and diagnostic procedures of the MDS.

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.