ArticleNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2024
Validity, diagnostics and feasibility of the Italian version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in Huntington's disease.
Article in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is the MMSE enough for MCI? A narrative review of the usefulness of the MMSE.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Review
- Psychometrics and diagnostics of the Italian version of the Alternate Verbal Fluency Battery (AVFB) in non-demented Parkinson's disease patients.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024Article
- On the Clinimetrics of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment: Cutoff Analysis in Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment due to Alzheimer's Disease.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study is aimed at assessing the clinimetric properties and feasibility of the Italian version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in patients with Huntington's disease (HD).
methodsN = 39 motor-manifest HD patients, N = 74 Parkinson's disease (PD) patients and N = 92 matched HCs were administered the MoCA. HD patients further underwent the Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale (UHDRS), self-report questionnaires for anxiety and depression and a battery of first- and second-level cognitive tests. Construct validity was tested against cognitive and behavioural/psychiatric measures, whereas ecological validity against motor-functional subscales of the UHDRS. Sensitivity to disease severity was tested, via a logistic regression, by exploring whether the MoCA discriminated between patients in Shoulson-Fahn stage ≤ 2 vs. > 2. The same analysis was employed to test its ability to discriminate HD patients from HCs and PD patients.
resultsThe MoCA converged towards cognitive and behavioural measures but diverged from psychiatric ones, being also associated with motor/functional measures from the UHDRS. In identifying patients with cognitive impairment, adjusted MoCA scores were highly accurate (AUC = .92), yielding optimal diagnostics at the cut-off of < 19.945 (J = .78). The MoCA was able to discriminate patients in the middle-to-advanced from those in the early-to-middle stages of the disease (p = .037), as well as to differentiate HD patients from both HCs (p < .001) and PD patients (p < .001).
conclusionsThe MoCA is a valid, diagnostically sound and feasible cognitive screener in motor-manifest HD patients, whose adoption is thus encouraged in clinical practice and research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.