SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Correlates of the discrepancy between objective and subjective cognitive functioning in non-demented patients with Parkinson's disease.

J Neurol · 2021-03-15

DOI: 10.1007/s00415-021-10519-4PMID: 33723623

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

BackgroundSubjective complaints of cognitive deficits are not necessarily consistent with objective evidence of cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease (PD). Here we examined the factors associated with the objective-subjective cognitive discrepancy.MethodsWe consecutively enrolled 90 non-demented patients with PD who completed the Parkinson's Disease Cognitive Functional Rating Scale (subjective cognitive measure) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA; objective cognitive measure). The patients were classified as "Overestimators", "Accurate estimators", and "Underestimators" on the basis of the discrepancy between the objective vs. subjective cognitive measures. To identify the factors distinguishing these groups from each other, we used chi-square tests or one-way analyses of variance, completed by logistic and linear regression analyses.ResultsForty-nine patients (54.45%) were classified as "Accurate estimators", 29 (32.22%) as "Underestimators", and 12 (13.33%) as "Overestimators". Relative to the other groups, the "Underestimators" scored higher on the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and Parkinson Anxiety Scale (p ConclusionIn more than 45% of consecutive non-demented patients with PD, we found a 'mismatch' between objective and subjective measures of cognitive functioning. Such discrepancy, which was related to the presence of fatigue and depressive symptoms and frontal executive impairments, should be carefully evaluated in clinical setting.

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.