SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Comparing Sensitivity and Specificity of Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-I, III and Mini-Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination in Parkinson's Disease.

Behav Neurol · 2018-10-02

DOI: 10.1155/2018/5932028PMID: 30369997

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

BackgroundParkinson's disease (PD) is the second most common neurodegenerative disorder characterized by numerous motor and nonmotor symptoms. Neurocognitive disorders (NCD) are one of the most troublesome problems and their diagnosis is often challenging.MethodsWe compared the sensitivity and specificity of several versions of Addenbrooke Cognitive Examination (ACE, ACE-III, and Mini-ACE) on 552 subjects with PD. Normal cognition, mild and major NCD were judged in accordance with the respective criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th edition. Subsequently, we applied the receiver operation characteristic (ROC) analysis in comparison of different education levels.ResultsFor subjects with education level 0-8 and 9-12 years, the ACE-III had the best discriminating capabilities for mild NCD (cut-off scores: 83.5 and 85.5 points, respectively), while Mini-ACE was the best for subjects having education > 12 years (cut-off score: 25.5 points). For detecting major NCD, ACE-III had the best diagnostic accuracy in all levels of education (cut-off scores: 70.5, 77.5, and 78.5 points for subjects having education level 0-8, 9-12, and >12 years, respectively).ConclusionACE-III and its nested version, the Mini-ACE, had the best screening abilities for detecting mild and major NCD in PD.

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.