Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39061417›Full record

ArticleBrain sciences2024

A Comparative Study on Cognitive Assessment in Cerebellar and Supratentorial Stroke.

Qi Liu, Yumei Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Qi LiuDepartment of Neurology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100070, China.
Yumei ZhangDepartment of Rehabilitation, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100070, China.

Funding

National Key R&D Program of China 2018YFC2002302National Nature Science Foundation of China 82372555; 81972144State Fund from China Scholarship Council 202308110231
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aims to understand the cognitive profiles of cerebellar infarction patients and compare them to those with supratentorial infarctions, particularly frontal infarctions. This current study also aims to find reliable assessment tools for detecting cognitive impairment in cerebellar infarction patients. A total of fifty cerebellar infarction patients, sixty supratentorial infarction patients, and thirty-nine healthy controls were recruited. The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination III (ACE-III), and Cerebellar Cognitive Affective Syndrome scale (CCAS-s) were used to assess global cognitive function. An extensive neuropsychological assessment battery was also tested to evaluate the characteristics of each cognitive domain. To assess the features of cognitive function, a comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation tool was also utilized. The cerebral infarction patients demonstrated cognitive impairment comparable to those with frontal infarcts, notably characterized by disturbance in attention and executive function. However, the degree of cognitive impairment was comparatively milder in cerebellar infarction patients. Furthermore, the patients in the cerebellar group had worse scores in the ACE-III and CCAS-s compared to healthy controls. The two assessments also demonstrated a significant area under the curve values, indicating their effectiveness in distinguishing cognitive impairment in cerebellar infarctions. In conclusion, cognitive impairment in a cerebellar infarction resembles frontal lobe dysfunction but is generally mild. It can be accurately assessed using the ACE-III and CCAS-s scales.

Indexed as

Cerebellar Cognitive Affective Syndromecerebellumcognitive functionscomparison studystrokesupratentorial infarction

Identifiers

PMID39061417
PMCPMC11274804

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.