ArticleJournal of neurology2025
Optimizing selectivity of the Cerebellar Cognitive Affective Syndrome Scale by use of correction formulas, and validation of its German version.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 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
- Cerebellar Cognitive Affective Syndrome in Spinocerebellar Ataxia Type 6.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2026Article
- The Cerebellar Cognitive-Affective Syndrome Scale Reveals Consistent, Early, and Progressive Neuropsychological Deficits in Autosomal-Recessive Spastic Ataxia of Charlevoix-Saguenay: A Large International Cross-Sectional Study.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2026Article
- Cerebellar clinical syndromes: the triad and rating scales.Journal of neurology · 2026Review
- Beyond cognition in post-stroke cognitive impairment: neuropsychiatric symptoms and stroke-specific cognitive screening.Cerebral circulation - cognition and behavior · 2026Article
- Two-year decline in performance on the Cerebellar Cognitive Affective Syndrome Scale in spinocerebellar ataxias.Journal of neurology · 2025Article
- The Cerebellar Cognitive Affective/Schmahmann Syndrome Scale: Updates and Insights.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2025Article
- Psychomotor and non-motor correlates of cognition in spinocerebellar ataxias Types 1, 2, 3, and 6.Brain communications · 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
28 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCerebellar disease may result in Cerebellar Cognitive Affective Syndrome (CCAS). The CCAS-Scale, designed to screen for CCAS, has been validated in English Hoche (Brain 141:248-270, 2018) and adapted to other languages.
methodsHere, the German CCAS-Scale Thieme (Neurol Res Pract 2:39, 2020) was validated in 209 patients with cerebellar disorders and 232 healthy controls. Correction formulas for the outcome parameters [failed test items (range: 1-10) and sum raw score (range: 0-120)] were developed, controlling for age, education, and sex effects. Diagnostic accuracy and reliability were assessed.
resultsCorrection formulas improved selectivity in controls, reducing false positives (failed items: 40%; sum score: 13% vs. original method Hoche (Brain 141:248-270, 2018): 67%), while maintaining moderate sensitivity (failed items: 69%; sum score: 48% vs. original method Hoche (Brain 141:248-270, 2018): 87%). Word fluency tests differentiated best between patients and controls, while other items did not. Internal consistency (α = 0.71) was acceptable. Removal of word fluency tests worsened it. Retest and interrater reliability were high [intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC): 0.77-0.95]. However, these ICCs yielded a large minimal detectable change (MDC; 2.2-2.4 failed items, 9.5-11.4 raw score points) in patients, limiting the use of the CCAS-Scale in follow-up examinations.
conclusionThe correction formulas improved diagnostic accuracy of the CCAS-Scale, particularly for the sum raw score. Therefore, we recommend using the corrected sum raw score for evaluation instead of the uncorrected number of failed items, proposed originally Hoche (Brain 141:248-270, 2018). Some test items, however, did not differentiate well between patients and controls and MDCs were large, highlighting the need for refined CCAS assessment instruments as progression or treatment outcomes.
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.