SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Patients' Self-Report and Handwriting Performance Features as Indicators for Suspected Mild Cognitive Impairment in Parkinson's Disease.

Sensors (Basel) · 2022-01-12

DOI: 10.3390/s22020569PMID: 35062535

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

Early identification of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in Parkinson's disease (PD) patients can lessen emotional and physical complications. In this study, a cognitive functional (CF) feature using cognitive and daily living items of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale served to define PD patients as suspected or not for MCI. The study aimed to compare objective handwriting performance measures with the perceived general functional abilities (PGF) of both groups, analyze correlations between handwriting performance measures and PGF for each group, and find out whether participants' general functional abilities, depression levels, and digitized handwriting measures predicted this CF feature. Seventy-eight participants diagnosed with PD by a neurologist (25 suspected for MCI based on the CF feature) completed the PGF as part of the Daily Living Questionnaire and wrote on a digitizer-affixed paper in the Computerized Penmanship Handwriting Evaluation Test. Results indicated significant group differences in PGF scores and handwriting stroke width, and significant medium correlations between PGF score, pen-stroke width, and the CF feature. Regression analyses indicated that PGF scores and mean stroke width accounted for 28% of the CF feature variance above age. Nuances of perceived daily functional abilities validated by objective measures may contribute to the early identification of suspected PD-MCI.

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.