ArticleBMC neurology2024
Reliable change indices for the Italian version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in non-demented Parkinson's disease patients.
Article in BMC 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.
- Predictors of cognitive performance in idiopathic adult-onset dystonia.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2026Article
- Clinical usability of telephone-based cognitive screening tests in Parkinson's disease.Journal of Parkinson's disease · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background. The present study aimed at deriving regression-based reliable change indices (RCIs) for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in an Italian cohort of non-demented Parkinson's disease (PD) patients.
methodsN = 33 consecutive, non-demented PD patients were followed-up at a 5-to-8-month interval (M = 6.6; SD = 0.6) with the MoCA. Practice effects and test-retest reliability were assessed via dependent-sample t-tests and intra-class correlation (ICC) coefficients, respectively. RCIs were derived separately for raw and demographically adjusted MoCA scores according to a standardized regression-based approach by accounting for both baseline confounders (i.e., demographics, disease duration and Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale scores) and retest interval.
resultsNo practice effects were found (t(32) = 0.29; p = .778), with acceptable test-retest reliability being detected (ICC = 0.67). MoCA scores at T0 proved to be the only significant predictor of T1 MoCA performances within both the model addressing raw scores and that addressing adjusted scores (ps < 0.001).
conclusionsThe present study provides Italian practitioners and researchers with regression-based RCIs for the MoCA in non-demented PD patients, which can be reliably adopted for retest interval ≥ 5 and ≤ 8 months without encountering any practice effect.
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.