Comparison of three cognitive assessment methods in post-stroke aphasia patients
BackgroundThe cognitive level of post-stroke aphasia (PSA) patients is generally lower than non-aphasia patients, and cognitive impairment (CI) affects the outcome of stroke. However, for different types of PSA, what kind of cognitive assessment methods to choose is not completely clear. We investig...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2022-10-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Psychology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.896095/full |
| _version_ | 1828338879287001088 |
|---|---|
| author | Zhijie Yan Zhijie Yan Shuo Xu Dongshuai Wei Xinyuan He Chong Li Yongli Zhang Mengye Chen Jingna Zhang Xiaofang Li Qing Yang Jie Jia Jie Jia |
| author_facet | Zhijie Yan Zhijie Yan Shuo Xu Dongshuai Wei Xinyuan He Chong Li Yongli Zhang Mengye Chen Jingna Zhang Xiaofang Li Qing Yang Jie Jia Jie Jia |
| author_sort | Zhijie Yan |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | BackgroundThe cognitive level of post-stroke aphasia (PSA) patients is generally lower than non-aphasia patients, and cognitive impairment (CI) affects the outcome of stroke. However, for different types of PSA, what kind of cognitive assessment methods to choose is not completely clear. We investigated the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and the Non-language-based Cognitive Assessment (NLCA) to observe the evaluation effect of CI in patients with fluent aphasia (FA) and non-fluent aphasia (NFA).Methods92 stroke patients were included in this study. Demographic and clinical data of the stroke group were documented. The language and cognition were evaluated by Western Aphasia Battery (WAB), MoCA, MMSE, and NLCA. PSA were divided into FA and NFA according to the Chinese aphasia fluency characteristic scale. Pearson’s product–moment correlation coefficient test and multiple linear regression analysis were performed to explore the relationship between the sub-items of WAB and cognitive scores. The classification rate of CI was tested by Pearson’s Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test.ResultsThe scores of aphasia quotient (AQ), MoCA, MMSE, and NLCA in NFA were lower than FA. AQ was positively correlated with MoCA, MMSE, and NLCA scores. Stepwise multiple linear regression analysis suggested that naming explained 70.7% of variance of MoCA and 79.9% of variance of MMSE; comprehension explained 46.7% of variance of NLCA. In the same type of PSA, there was no significant difference in the classification rate. The classification rate of CI in NFA by MoCA and MMSE was higher than that in FA. There was no significant difference in the classification rate of CI between FA and NFA by NLCA.ConclusionMoCA, MMSE, and NLCA can be applied in FA. NLCA is recommended for NFA. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T22:35:15Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-60f762061f314a00b20c192dc7b26cc5 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1664-1078 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T22:35:15Z |
| publishDate | 2022-10-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Psychology |
| spelling | doaj.art-60f762061f314a00b20c192dc7b26cc52022-12-22T02:26:48ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Psychology1664-10782022-10-011310.3389/fpsyg.2022.896095896095Comparison of three cognitive assessment methods in post-stroke aphasia patientsZhijie Yan0Zhijie Yan1Shuo Xu2Dongshuai Wei3Xinyuan He4Chong Li5Yongli Zhang6Mengye Chen7Jingna Zhang8Xiaofang Li9Qing Yang10Jie Jia11Jie Jia12Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, ChinaDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Xinxiang Medical University, Xinxiang, ChinaDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, ChinaDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, ChinaDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, ChinaDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, ChinaDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, ChinaDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, ChinaDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Xinxiang Medical University, Xinxiang, ChinaDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Xinxiang Medical University, Xinxiang, ChinaDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, ChinaDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, ChinaNational Clinical Research Center for Aging and Medicine, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, ChinaBackgroundThe cognitive level of post-stroke aphasia (PSA) patients is generally lower than non-aphasia patients, and cognitive impairment (CI) affects the outcome of stroke. However, for different types of PSA, what kind of cognitive assessment methods to choose is not completely clear. We investigated the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and the Non-language-based Cognitive Assessment (NLCA) to observe the evaluation effect of CI in patients with fluent aphasia (FA) and non-fluent aphasia (NFA).Methods92 stroke patients were included in this study. Demographic and clinical data of the stroke group were documented. The language and cognition were evaluated by Western Aphasia Battery (WAB), MoCA, MMSE, and NLCA. PSA were divided into FA and NFA according to the Chinese aphasia fluency characteristic scale. Pearson’s product–moment correlation coefficient test and multiple linear regression analysis were performed to explore the relationship between the sub-items of WAB and cognitive scores. The classification rate of CI was tested by Pearson’s Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test.ResultsThe scores of aphasia quotient (AQ), MoCA, MMSE, and NLCA in NFA were lower than FA. AQ was positively correlated with MoCA, MMSE, and NLCA scores. Stepwise multiple linear regression analysis suggested that naming explained 70.7% of variance of MoCA and 79.9% of variance of MMSE; comprehension explained 46.7% of variance of NLCA. In the same type of PSA, there was no significant difference in the classification rate. The classification rate of CI in NFA by MoCA and MMSE was higher than that in FA. There was no significant difference in the classification rate of CI between FA and NFA by NLCA.ConclusionMoCA, MMSE, and NLCA can be applied in FA. NLCA is recommended for NFA.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.896095/fullpost-stroke aphasiafluent aphasianon-fluent aphasiacognitive impairmentNLCA |
| spellingShingle | Zhijie Yan Zhijie Yan Shuo Xu Dongshuai Wei Xinyuan He Chong Li Yongli Zhang Mengye Chen Jingna Zhang Xiaofang Li Qing Yang Jie Jia Jie Jia Comparison of three cognitive assessment methods in post-stroke aphasia patients Frontiers in Psychology post-stroke aphasia fluent aphasia non-fluent aphasia cognitive impairment NLCA |
| title | Comparison of three cognitive assessment methods in post-stroke aphasia patients |
| title_full | Comparison of three cognitive assessment methods in post-stroke aphasia patients |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of three cognitive assessment methods in post-stroke aphasia patients |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of three cognitive assessment methods in post-stroke aphasia patients |
| title_short | Comparison of three cognitive assessment methods in post-stroke aphasia patients |
| title_sort | comparison of three cognitive assessment methods in post stroke aphasia patients |
| topic | post-stroke aphasia fluent aphasia non-fluent aphasia cognitive impairment NLCA |
| url | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.896095/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT zhijieyan comparisonofthreecognitiveassessmentmethodsinpoststrokeaphasiapatients AT zhijieyan comparisonofthreecognitiveassessmentmethodsinpoststrokeaphasiapatients AT shuoxu comparisonofthreecognitiveassessmentmethodsinpoststrokeaphasiapatients AT dongshuaiwei comparisonofthreecognitiveassessmentmethodsinpoststrokeaphasiapatients AT xinyuanhe comparisonofthreecognitiveassessmentmethodsinpoststrokeaphasiapatients AT chongli comparisonofthreecognitiveassessmentmethodsinpoststrokeaphasiapatients AT yonglizhang comparisonofthreecognitiveassessmentmethodsinpoststrokeaphasiapatients AT mengyechen comparisonofthreecognitiveassessmentmethodsinpoststrokeaphasiapatients AT jingnazhang comparisonofthreecognitiveassessmentmethodsinpoststrokeaphasiapatients AT xiaofangli comparisonofthreecognitiveassessmentmethodsinpoststrokeaphasiapatients AT qingyang comparisonofthreecognitiveassessmentmethodsinpoststrokeaphasiapatients AT jiejia comparisonofthreecognitiveassessmentmethodsinpoststrokeaphasiapatients AT jiejia comparisonofthreecognitiveassessmentmethodsinpoststrokeaphasiapatients |