SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

The Multiple Object Test as a performance-based tool to assess the decline of ADL function in Parkinson's disease.

PLoS One · 2018-08-01

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200990PMID: 30067788

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

IntroductionAs cognitive-driven worsening of activities of the daily living (ADL) in Parkinson's disease (PD) is the core feature of PD dementia (PDD), there is great need for sensitive quantitative assessment. Aim of our study was the evaluation of cognitive-driven worsening of ADL by the performance-based Multiple Object Test (MOT), offering an essential clinical advantage as it is quick and easy to apply in a clinical context even on severely impaired patients.Methods73 PD patients were assessed longitudinally over a period of 37 (6-49) months. According to their neuropsychological profile the sample was divided into two groups: PD patients with (n = 34, PD-CI) and without cognitive impairment (n = 39, PD-noCI). The MOT comprises five routine tasks (e.g. to make coffee) quick and easy to apply. Quantitative (total error number, processing time) and qualitative parameters (error type) were analyzed using non-parametric test statistic (e.g.Wilcoxon signed-rank test, binary logistic regression).ResultsMedian number of total errors (p = 0.001), processing time (pConclusionThe MOT, especially frequency of omission errors, is a promising tool to rate PD patients objectively and might help to identify patients with a high risk for having mild cognitive impairment or dementia.

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.