SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Validity and diagnostics of the Italian version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in non-demented Parkinson's disease patients.

Aging Clin Exp Res · 2023-07-22

DOI: 10.1007/s40520-023-02493-wPMID: 37480503

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

BackgroundThis study aimed at: (1) assessing, in an Italian cohort of non-demented Parkinson's disease (PD) patients, the construct validity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) against both first- and second-level cognitive measures; (2) delivering an exhaustive and updated evaluation of its diagnostic properties.MethodsA retrospective cohort of N = 237 non-demented PD patients having been administered the MoCA was addressed, of whom N = 169 further underwent the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and N = 68 the Parkinson's Disease Cognitive Rating Scale (PD-CRS). A subsample (N = 60) also underwent a second-level cognitive battery encompassing measures of attention/executive functioning, language, memory, praxis and visuo-spatial abilities. Construct validity was assessed against both the PD-CRS and the second-level cognitive battery. Diagnostics were tested via receiver-operating characteristics analyses against a below-cut-off MMSE score.ResultsThe MoCA was associated with both PD-CRS scores (p DiscussionThe Italian MoCA is a valid and diagnostically sound screener for global cognitive inefficiency in non-demented PD patients. Further studies are nevertheless needed that confirm its diagnostic values against a measure other than the MMSE.

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.