ArticlePloS one2024
Screening instruments of cognition: The relation of the mini-mental state examination to the Edinburgh cognitive and behavioural ALS screen in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Brain metabolic imaging with 18 F-PET-CT and machine-learning clustering analysis reveal divergent metabolic phenotypes in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Prevalence and motor-functional correlates of frontotemporal-spectrum disorders in a large cohort of non-demented ALS patients.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe Edinburgh Cognitive and Behavioural ALS Screen (ECAS) is an established cognitive screening instrument for patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Different from tools like the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), it is adjusted for motor impairment, yet, the latter remains one of the most widely used screening instruments, also in ALS studies. Thus, it is of utmost importance to relate outcome scores of both instruments to allow for comparison in ALS patients. This study reports on the performance of ALS patients in both tests with regard to incidence and degree of cognitive impairment, and the correspondence of both, ECAS and MMSE scores.
methodsWe examined N = 84 ALS patients with the German versions of the ECAS and the MMSE. Performance in both tests regarding incidence and degree of cognitive impairment, and correspondence of frequency of cognitive impairment according to both tests was examined. The relationship between ECAS and MMSE scores was modelled with a non-linear regression model.
resultsAll ALS patients were able to complete the ECAS, 89.3% (N = 75) were capable to complete the MMSE. Prevalence of cognitive impairment was in both tests 22.7%, however agreement was only 52.9%. Despite, regression analyses yielded a strong positive relationship (adjusted R2 = .68) between the ECAS total score and the MMSE total score. Both tests were able to identify all patients with dementia.
conclusionThese results suggest that the MMSE is not ideal for cognitive screening in early-stage ALS patients. However, a rough translation of MMSE scores in ECAS scores is possible to estimate the cognitive performance level of patients, with the ECAS being more discriminative in the lower range of cognitive dysfunction (ECAS score: 80-136), for which the MMSE does not define cognitive impairment (corresponding MMSE score: 27-30).
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.