SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

A single Center study of the Symbol Digit Modalities test as a screening tool for cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease.

Clin Park Relat Disord · 2025-09-16

DOI: 10.1016/j.prdoa.2025.100395PMID: 41049313

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) can include physical signs and possibly cognitive impairment, resulting from the convergence of pathological processes involving dopaminergic dysfunction, accumulation of alpha-synuclein, cholinergic deficits, and disruption of other neurotransmitter systems. We used screening tests to evaluate the characteristics of cognitive performance in patients with PD and to assess their validity compared to the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA).MethodsThis is a natural history study of participants with PD and controls screened for possible cognitive impairment using the MoCA, Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT), and King-Devick (KD). The groups were compared on performance and then factors associated with cognitive performance (age, diagnosis, and level of education) were analyzed to determine which best predicted test scores.ResultsSDMT scores were lower in the PD group (Mean = 36.7 ± 12.4) compared to controls (Mean = 47.2 ± 11.0, p ConclusionsThe SDMT emerged as a promising screening tool to detect cognitive impairment in PD. The test's age and education corrected norms controlled for those variables and left diagnosis as the only predictor of performance. The MoCA scores were predicted by age, education, and diagnosis suggesting the education correction of the MoCA did not fully account for the influence of demographic variables.

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.