Cognitive Skills Questionnaire: Comparative Results in Elderly Population without Cognitive Deficit, Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer's Disease

E. Labos, Sofía Trojanowski, Karina Zabala, Miriam Del Rio, A. Renato, D. Seinhart, M. Schapira, Alberto Mauriño
{"title":"Cognitive Skills Questionnaire: Comparative Results in Elderly Population without Cognitive Deficit, Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer's Disease","authors":"E. Labos, Sofía Trojanowski, Karina Zabala, Miriam Del Rio, A. Renato, D. Seinhart, M. Schapira, Alberto Mauriño","doi":"10.31487/j.ggr.2020.02.06","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The increase in consultations for changes and/or cognitive complaints in the elderly, together with the\ncurrent interest in epidemiological research in this context creates the need for screening tools for cognitive\nassessment to enable the detection of early deficits. Evidence shows its predictive value in the development\nof dementia disease. This study aims at displaying the results of a Cognitive Skills Questionnaire (CSQ) in\na patient population with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer’s disease (AD), both compared\nwith a control group (CG) with no cognitive disorder and verifying its sensitivity and specificity in order to\nidentify risk patients with cognitive disorder.\nParticipants and Methods: A total of 208 participants were evaluated, out of which 60 had MCI, 46 had\nAD and a remaining group of 102 subjects who had no cognitive disorder. All participants were\nadministrated the CSQ and a battery of neuropsychological proofs. We analysed the statistical data using\nANOVA, Student’s t-test, Tuckey test, ROC curve and principal components analysis. A multiple regression\nanalysis was carried out so as to single out those questions which better differentiated the studied groups.\nResults: The CSQ showed significant differences between the CG and both groups of patients (AD p> 0.01\nand MCI p> 0.05). It was established a cut-off point of 17.5 in the CSQ total score with a sensitivity of 93%\nand a specificity of 91.3%.\nConclusion: The CSQ could eventually allow us to identify patients with cognitive disorders and those\nothers with a cognitive complaint greater than expected. Thus, this questionnaire could be a useful testing\nand counselling tool in health primary attention.","PeriodicalId":93558,"journal":{"name":"Gerontology and geriatric research","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gerontology and geriatric research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31487/j.ggr.2020.02.06","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The increase in consultations for changes and/or cognitive complaints in the elderly, together with the current interest in epidemiological research in this context creates the need for screening tools for cognitive assessment to enable the detection of early deficits. Evidence shows its predictive value in the development of dementia disease. This study aims at displaying the results of a Cognitive Skills Questionnaire (CSQ) in a patient population with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer’s disease (AD), both compared with a control group (CG) with no cognitive disorder and verifying its sensitivity and specificity in order to identify risk patients with cognitive disorder. Participants and Methods: A total of 208 participants were evaluated, out of which 60 had MCI, 46 had AD and a remaining group of 102 subjects who had no cognitive disorder. All participants were administrated the CSQ and a battery of neuropsychological proofs. We analysed the statistical data using ANOVA, Student’s t-test, Tuckey test, ROC curve and principal components analysis. A multiple regression analysis was carried out so as to single out those questions which better differentiated the studied groups. Results: The CSQ showed significant differences between the CG and both groups of patients (AD p> 0.01 and MCI p> 0.05). It was established a cut-off point of 17.5 in the CSQ total score with a sensitivity of 93% and a specificity of 91.3%. Conclusion: The CSQ could eventually allow us to identify patients with cognitive disorders and those others with a cognitive complaint greater than expected. Thus, this questionnaire could be a useful testing and counselling tool in health primary attention.
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
认知技能问卷:没有认知缺陷、轻度认知障碍和阿尔茨海默病的老年人的比较结果
针对老年人变化和/或认知投诉的咨询增加,加上目前对这方面流行病学研究的兴趣,产生了对认知评估筛查工具的需求,从而能够发现早期缺陷。有证据表明它对痴呆症的发展具有预测价值。本研究旨在展示认知技能问卷(CSQ)在轻度认知障碍(MCI)和阿尔茨海默病(AD)患者群体中的结果,这两个患者群体与没有认知障碍的对照组(CG)进行比较,并验证其敏感性和特异性,以识别认知障碍的风险患者。参与者和方法:共评估了208名参与者,其中60人患有MCI,46人患有hadAD,其余102名受试者没有认知障碍。所有参与者都接受了CSQ和一系列神经心理学证据。我们使用ANOVA、Student t检验、Tuckey检验、ROC曲线和主成分分析对统计数据进行了分析。进行了多元回归分析,以找出那些能更好地区分研究组的问题。结果:CSQ在CG和两组患者之间显示出显著差异(AD p>0.01,MCI p>0.05)。CSQ总分的分界点为17.5,敏感性为93%,特异性为91.3%。结论:CSQ最终可以使我们识别认知障碍患者和认知主诉大于预期的患者。因此,该问卷可以成为健康初级关注的有用测试和咨询工具。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
There is a Correlation between Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis and a Circle-Type Morphology of the True Pelvis, but Not with Pelvic Incidence Cognitive Skills Questionnaire: Comparative Results in Elderly Population without Cognitive Deficit, Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer's Disease Mental Health of Retired Ex-Combatants Changing Pattern of Tuberculosis: Clinical Presentation Within a Decade - Analysis from South-East Europe Maintenance Electroconvulsive Therapy Meeting Unmet Needs of Antipsychotics in Older Patients: A Case Report
×
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