SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Educational disparities in Brazil may interfere with the cognitive performance of Parkinson's disease patients.

Dement Neuropsychol · 2023-11-20

DOI: 10.1590/1980-5764-dn-2022-0084PMID: 38028380

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

The prevalence of cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease (PD) is about 20% to 60%. The Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) is the most used cognitive screening test.ObjectiveTo evaluate the influence of clinical and demographic characteristics, specifically the education level, on the MMSE score in PD patients of a northeast Brazilian sample.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional study of 198 PD patients at a Movement Disorders outpatient clinic in Fortaleza, CE, Brazil. Participants were assessed by detailed clinical history, modified Hoehn and Yahr staging (HY), geriatric depression scale (GDS) and MMSE.ResultsWe found that 68% of patients had MMSE scores below the Brazilian thresholds, which were based in Brucki et al. study (2003). There was a statistically significant difference in the bivariate analysis between educational level and cut-off classification for MMSE. More years of formal schooling were associated with more patients scoring below threshold. We found that 75%, 68.8%, and 79.7% of individuals with more than 11, 9 to 11, and 4 to 8 years of formal schooling, respectively, were below the suggested Brazilian Brucki's threshold. GDS and age were negatively correlated with total MMSE and all its domains. There was no correlation between disease duration and MMSE. Subjects with hallucinations had lower scores.ConclusionMost of the sample had lower performance according to Brazilian thresholds, but there was no control group and no neuropsychological test in this study. Further studies in northeast Brazil are needed to review MMSE cut-off values.

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.