Premium
An assessment of Movement Disorder Society Task Force diagnostic criteria for mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease
Author(s) -
UysalCantürk P.,
Hanağası H. A.,
Bilgiç B.,
Gürvit H.,
Emre M.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
european journal of neurology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.881
H-Index - 124
eISSN - 1468-1331
pISSN - 1351-5101
DOI - 10.1111/ene.13467
Subject(s) - montreal cognitive assessment , dementia , medicine , parkinson's disease , cognition , cognitive impairment , disease , receiver operating characteristic , neuropsychology , neuropsychological assessment , physical therapy , audiology , physical medicine and rehabilitation , psychiatry
Background and purpose Cognitive impairment is one of the most disabling non‐motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease. Mild cognitive impairment constitutes a major risk for the development of Parkinson's disease dementia in the course of the disease. A Movement Disorder Society Task Force proposed diagnostic criteria for mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease ( PD ‐ MCI ), comprising two operational levels: Level I and Level II . The objective of our study was to test the accuracy of Level I versus Level II diagnostic criteria. Methods Eighty‐six consecutive patients with Parkinson's disease were screened and 68 patients without dementia or depression were included in the study. We used the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Mini‐Mental State Examination and Addenbrooke's Cognitive Evaluation‐R screening tools for Level I and an extensive neuropsychological battery for Level II assessment. We first diagnosed PD ‐ MCI on the basis of Level II assessment and then calculated sensitivity, specificity and area under the receiver–operator characteristics curve, comparing the performance of the three screening batteries. Results None of the three screening batteries proposed for Level I assessment provided satisfactory combined sensitivity and specificity for detecting PD ‐ MCI , and their performance was similar. Using the Level II criteria, 29 patients (43%) were diagnosed as having PD ‐ MCI . Lowest cut‐off levels that provided at least 80% sensitivity were 24 for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, 29 for the Mini‐Mental State Examination and 87 for the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Evaluation‐R. However, specificity levels were below 80% at these cut‐off levels. Conclusions We conclude that Level I assessment alone using screening batteries is not sufficiently sensitive/specific to detect PD ‐ MCI .