Quantitative and Qualitative Analyses of the Clock Drawing Test in Fall and Non-Fall Patients with Alzheimer's Disease.

IF 1.4 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra Pub Date : 2019-12-20 eCollection Date: 2019-09-01 DOI:10.1159/000502089
Yukiko Suzuki, Hideki Mochizuki, Mayuka Oki, Miyuki Matsumoto, Mitsuko Fukushima, Yukiko Yoshikawa, Akira Nagasawa, Tomokazu Takakura, Nobuaki Shimoda
{"title":"Quantitative and Qualitative Analyses of the Clock Drawing Test in Fall and Non-Fall Patients with Alzheimer's Disease.","authors":"Yukiko Suzuki,&nbsp;Hideki Mochizuki,&nbsp;Mayuka Oki,&nbsp;Miyuki Matsumoto,&nbsp;Mitsuko Fukushima,&nbsp;Yukiko Yoshikawa,&nbsp;Akira Nagasawa,&nbsp;Tomokazu Takakura,&nbsp;Nobuaki Shimoda","doi":"10.1159/000502089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The clock drawing test (CDT) is widely used as a visual spatial ability test and screening test for dementia patients. The appearance frequency of qualitative errors obtained through the qualitative analysis of CDT may be related to the participant's falls. The aim of this study was to clarify the difference in the number of people who presented with qualitative errors in the CDT between a fall and non-fall group of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The CDT was implemented for 47 patients with AD. A quantitative analysis was conducted, and a qualitative analysis was performed for errors. The patients were divided into two groups based on their history of falls over the past year. The results of the CDT quantitative analysis were tested using the Mann-Whitney U test, and Fisher's exact test was employed to determine the difference in the number of people who presented with error types between the two groups (fall group, non-fall group) in the CDT qualitative analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the quantitative analysis, a significant difference was found for the total scores, with the total CDT score of the fall group (<i>n</i> = 22) significantly lower than that of the non-fall group (<i>n</i> = 25) (<i>p</i> = 0.006, effect size: φ = 0.40). In the qualitative analysis, a significantly higher number of patients in the fall group than in the non-fall group presented with a conceptual deficit (<i>p =</i>0.001, φ = 0.51). No differences were found in the number of patients in the two groups who presented with the other five error types.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These results showed that a lower score in the CDT quantitative analysis might suggest an increased risk of falls. It was also clarified that a larger number of patients in the fall group than in the non-fall group presented with a conceptual deficit of the qualitative error types in the CDT. Therefore, these results suggest that the appearance of a conceptual deficit may be an index for the selection of patients with AD prone to falling when implementing fall prevention measures.</p>","PeriodicalId":38017,"journal":{"name":"Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000502089","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000502089","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Aim: The clock drawing test (CDT) is widely used as a visual spatial ability test and screening test for dementia patients. The appearance frequency of qualitative errors obtained through the qualitative analysis of CDT may be related to the participant's falls. The aim of this study was to clarify the difference in the number of people who presented with qualitative errors in the CDT between a fall and non-fall group of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD).

Methods: The CDT was implemented for 47 patients with AD. A quantitative analysis was conducted, and a qualitative analysis was performed for errors. The patients were divided into two groups based on their history of falls over the past year. The results of the CDT quantitative analysis were tested using the Mann-Whitney U test, and Fisher's exact test was employed to determine the difference in the number of people who presented with error types between the two groups (fall group, non-fall group) in the CDT qualitative analysis.

Results: In the quantitative analysis, a significant difference was found for the total scores, with the total CDT score of the fall group (n = 22) significantly lower than that of the non-fall group (n = 25) (p = 0.006, effect size: φ = 0.40). In the qualitative analysis, a significantly higher number of patients in the fall group than in the non-fall group presented with a conceptual deficit (p =0.001, φ = 0.51). No differences were found in the number of patients in the two groups who presented with the other five error types.

Conclusions: These results showed that a lower score in the CDT quantitative analysis might suggest an increased risk of falls. It was also clarified that a larger number of patients in the fall group than in the non-fall group presented with a conceptual deficit of the qualitative error types in the CDT. Therefore, these results suggest that the appearance of a conceptual deficit may be an index for the selection of patients with AD prone to falling when implementing fall prevention measures.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
阿尔茨海默病跌倒与非跌倒患者时钟绘制试验的定量与定性分析。
目的:时钟绘制试验(clock drawing test, CDT)作为一种视觉空间能力测试和痴呆患者的筛查试验被广泛应用。通过CDT定性分析获得的定性误差出现频率可能与参与者的跌倒有关。本研究的目的是澄清跌倒组和非跌倒组阿尔茨海默病(AD)患者CDT出现定性错误的人数的差异。方法:对47例AD患者进行CDT治疗。进行定量分析,对误差进行定性分析。根据过去一年的跌倒史,患者被分为两组。CDT定量分析结果采用Mann-Whitney U检验,定性分析采用Fisher精确检验确定两组(跌倒组和非跌倒组)出现错误类型人数的差异。结果:在定量分析中,两组总分有显著性差异,跌倒组(n = 22)的CDT总分显著低于未跌倒组(n = 25) (p = 0.006,效应量φ = 0.40)。在定性分析中,跌倒组出现概念缺陷的患者数量明显高于非跌倒组(p =0.001, φ = 0.51)。两组中出现其他五种错误类型的患者数量没有差异。结论:这些结果表明,CDT定量分析得分越低,跌倒风险越高。研究还表明,与非跌倒组相比,跌倒组中更多的患者对CDT的定性误差类型存在概念性缺陷。因此,这些结果表明,概念缺陷的出现可能是在实施预防跌倒措施时选择AD易感跌倒患者的一个指标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra
Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra Medicine-Psychiatry and Mental Health
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: This open access and online-only journal publishes original articles covering the entire spectrum of cognitive dysfunction such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s chorea and other neurodegenerative diseases. The journal draws from diverse related research disciplines such as psychogeriatrics, neuropsychology, clinical neurology, morphology, physiology, genetic molecular biology, pathology, biochemistry, immunology, pharmacology and pharmaceutics. Strong emphasis is placed on the publication of research findings from animal studies which are complemented by clinical and therapeutic experience to give an overall appreciation of the field. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra provides additional contents based on reviewed and accepted submissions to the main journal Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra .
期刊最新文献
Fear of Dementia among Middle-Aged and Older Adults in Germany. Characteristics of Alzheimer's Disease and Mild Cognitive Impairment Influenced by the Time of Onset. Prevalence of Geriatric Syndromes among Older Outpatients with Dementia. Criterion-Related Validity of the Cognitive Function Score with the Revised Hasegawa's Dementia Scale and the Bedriddenness Rank with the Barthel Index and the Katz Index: A Multi-Center Retrospective Study. What’s new in dementia risk prediction modelling? An updated systematic review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1