ArticleActa neurologica Belgica2024
Reliability and validity study of the Chinese version of the Cerebellar Cognitive Affective Syndrome Scale in patients with cerebellar injury.
Article in Acta neurologica Belgica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevalence of Cerebellar Cognitive Affective Syndrome in Patients with Cerebellar Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Remote Online-Based Application of the Cerebellar Cognitive Affective Syndrome Scale.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2026Article
- Relationship between executive function and dual-task walking in people with Parkinson's disease.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2025Article
- The cerebellar-related cognitive function is sensitive to aging: implications for early detection.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo preliminarily investigate the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Cerebellar Cognitive Affective Syndrome Scale (CCAS scale) in the cerebellar injury population.
methodsIn this study, 40 patients with cerebellar injury and 39 normal individuals hospitalized in a stroke center were assessed using the Chinese version of the CCAS scale A, MMSE, and PHQ2, and the results were analyzed using content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, inter- rater agreement, and test-retest reliability.
resultsThe correlation coefficients of semantic fluency, phonemic fluency, category switching, digit span forward, digit span backward, cube, verbal recall, similarities and Go No-Go subscores in the Chinese version of the CCAS scale A were 0.586-0.831 (P ≤ 0.05) with the total score, but there was no significant correlation between the affect and the total score (P = 0.110). The total cognitive score of the Chinese version of the CCAS scale A was correlated with the (r = 0.807, P ≤ 0.01), and the total score of the Chinese version of the CCAS scale A affect was correlated with the total score of PHQ2 (r = 0.884, P ≤ 0.01). The 2 factors were extracted using principal component analysis, and the cumulative variance contribution rate was 59.633%. The factor loadings of each of the corresponding factors were > 0.5, indicating good structural validity of the Chinese version of the CCAS scale A. Cronbach α = 0.827 indicated good internal consistency, and inter-rater reliability (ICC > 0.95) and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.717-0.895)indicated that the Chinese version of the CCAS scale A had good inter-rater reliability and test-retest reliability.
conclusionThe Chinese version of the CCAS scale A has good reliability and validity in the cerebellar injury population and is useful for screening cerebellar cognitive-emotional syndrome.
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.