ArticleEuropean journal of neurology2024
Validity of the Short Weekly Calendar Planning Activity in patients with Parkinson disease and nonmanifesting LRRK2 and GBA carriers.
Article in European journal of neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validity of the Japanese Version of the Weekly Calendar Planning Activity (WCPA)-10 on Assessing Executive Function in Patients with Acquired Brain Injury (ABI).Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Validity of the Short Weekly Calendar Planning Activity in patients with Parkinson disease and nonmanifesting LRRK2 and GBA carriers.European journal of neurology · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeSubtle executive dysfunction is common in people newly diagnosed with Parkinson disease (PD), even when general cognitive abilities are intact. This study examined the Short Weekly Calendar Planning Activity (WCPA-10)'s known-group construct validity, comparing persons with PD to healthy controls (HCs) and nonmanifesting carriers of LRRK2 and GBA gene mutations to HCs. Additionally, convergent and ecological validity was examined.
methodsThe study included 73 participants: 22 with idiopathic PD (iPD) who do not carry any of the founder GBA mutations or LRRK2-G2019S, 29 nonmanifesting carriers of the G2019S-LRRK2 (n = 14) and GBA (n = 15) mutations, and 22 HCs. Known-group validity was determined using the WCPA-10, convergent validity by also using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Color Trails Test (CTT), and ecological validity by using the WCPA-10, Schwab and England Activities of Daily Living Scale (SE ADL), and Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE).
resultsKnown-group validity of the WCPA-10 was established for the iPD group only; they followed fewer rules (p = 0.020), were slower (p = 0.003) and less efficient (p = 0.001), used more strategies (p = 0.017) on the WCPA-10, and achieved significantly lower CTT scores (p < 0.001) than the HCs. The nonmanifesting carriers and HCs were similar on all cognitive tests. Convergent and ecological validity of the WCPA-10 were partially established, with few correlations between WCPA-10 outcome measures and the MoCA (r = 0.50, r = 0.41), CTT-2 (r = 0.43), SE ADL (r = 0.41), and PASE (r = 0.54, r = 0.46, r = 0.31).
conclusionsThis study affirms the known-group validity for most (four) WCPA-10 scores and partially confirms its convergent and ecological validity for PD.
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.