| Title |
MMSE and MoCA in Parkinson’s disease and dementia with Lewy bodies: a multicenter 1-year follow-up study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Neural Transmission, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00702-016-1517-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Roberta Biundo, L. Weis, S. Bostantjopoulou, E. Stefanova, C. Falup-Pecurariu, M. G. Kramberger, G. J. Geurtsen, A. Antonini, D. Weintraub, D. Aarsland |
| Abstract |
The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) are the most commonly used scales to test cognitive impairment in Lewy body disease (LBD), but there is no consensus on which is best suited to assess cognition in clinical practice and most sensitive to cognitive decline. Retrospective cohort study of 265 LBD patients [Parkinson's disease (PD) without dementia (PDnD, N = 197), PD with dementia (PDD, N = 40), and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB, N = 28)] from an international consortium who completed both the MMSE and MoCA at baseline and 1-year follow-up (N = 153). Percentage of relative standard deviation (RSD%) at baseline was the measure of inter-individual variance, and estimation of change (Cohen's d) over time was calculated. RSD% for the MoCA (21 %) was greater than for the MMSE (13 %) (p = 0.03) in the whole group. This difference was significant only in PDnD (11 vs. 5 %, p < 0.01), but not in PDD (30 vs. 19 %, p = 0.37) or DLB (15 vs. 14 %, p = 0.78). In contrast, the 1-year estimation of change did not differ between the two tests in any of the groups (Cohen's effect <0.20 in each group). MMSE and MoCA are equal in measuring the rate of cognitive changes over time in LBD. However, in PDnD, the MoCA is a better measure of cognitive status as it lacks both ceiling and floor effects. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 2 | 1% |
| Unknown | 136 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 24 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 17% |
| Researcher | 17 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 9% |
| Other | 12 | 9% |
| Other | 22 | 16% |
| Unknown | 27 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 23% |
| Psychology | 22 | 16% |
| Neuroscience | 18 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 8% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 13 | 9% |
| Unknown | 39 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 September 2020.
All research outputs
#2,608,747
of 22,844,985 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neural Transmission
#117
of 1,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,320
of 397,355 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neural Transmission
#3
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,844,985 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,767 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 397,355 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.