Suppr超能文献

制定一份诊断清单,以鉴别功能性认知障碍与其他神经认知障碍。

Development of a diagnostic checklist to identify functional cognitive disorder versus other neurocognitive disorders.

作者信息

Cabreira Verónica, Alty Jane, Antic Sonja, Araujo Rui, Aybek Selma, Ball Harriet A, Baslet Gaston, Bhome Rohan, Coebergh Jan, Dubois Bruno, Edwards Mark, Filipovic Sasa R, Frederiksen Kristian Steen, Harbo Thomas, Hayhow Bradleigh, Howard Robert, Huntley Jonathan, Isaacs Jeremy Darryl, LaFrance Curt, Larner Andrew, Di Lorenzo Francesco, Main James, Mallam Elizabeth, Marra Camillo, Massano João, McGrath Emer R, Portela Moreira Isabel, Nobili Flavio, Pal Suvankar, Pennington Catherine M, Tábuas-Pereira Miguel, Perez David, Popkirov Stoyan, Rayment Dane, Rossor Martin, Russo Mirella, Santana Isabel, Schott Jonathan, Scott Emmi P, Taipa Ricardo, Teodoro Tiago, Tinazzi Michele, Tomic Svetlana, Toniolo Sofia, Tørring Caroline Winther, Wilkinson Tim, Zeidler Martin, Frostholm Lisbeth, McWhirter Laura, Stone Jon, Carson Alan

机构信息

Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Wicking Dementia Research and Education Centre, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.

出版信息

BMJ Neurol Open. 2025 Feb 27;7(1):e000918. doi: 10.1136/bmjno-2024-000918. eCollection 2025.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Functional cognitive disorder (FCD) poses a diagnostic challenge due to its resemblance to other neurocognitive disorders and limited biomarker accuracy. We aimed to develop a new diagnostic checklist to identify FCD versus other neurocognitive disorders.

METHODS

The clinical checklist was developed through mixed methods: (1) a literature review, (2) a three-round Delphi study with 45 clinicians from 12 countries and (3) a pilot discriminative accuracy study in consecutive patients attending seven memory services across the UK. Items gathering consensus were incorporated into a pilot checklist. Item redundancy was evaluated with phi coefficients. A briefer checklist was produced by removing items with >10% missing data. Internal validity was tested using Cronbach's alpha. Optimal cut-off scores were determined using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.

RESULTS

A full 11-item checklist and a 7-item briefer checklist were produced. Overall, 239 patients (143 FCD, 96 non-FCD diagnoses) were included. The checklist scores were significantly different across subgroups (FCD and other neurocognitive disorders) (F(2, 236)=313.3, p<0.001). The area under the curve was excellent for both the full checklist (0.97, 95% CI 0.95 to 0.99) and its brief version (0.96, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.98). Optimal cut-off scores corresponded to a specificity of 97% and positive predictive value of 91% for identifying FCD. Both versions showed good internal validity (>0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study shows that a brief clinical checklist may serve as a quick complementary tool to differentiate patients with neurodegeneration from those with FCD. Prospective blind large-scale validation in diverse populations is warranted.Cite Now.

摘要

背景

功能性认知障碍(FCD)因其与其他神经认知障碍相似且生物标志物准确性有限,给诊断带来了挑战。我们旨在开发一种新的诊断清单,以识别FCD与其他神经认知障碍。

方法

通过混合方法制定临床清单:(1)文献综述,(2)与来自12个国家的45名临床医生进行三轮德尔菲研究,以及(3)在英国七个记忆服务机构就诊的连续患者中进行试点判别准确性研究。达成共识的项目被纳入试点清单。使用phi系数评估项目冗余度。通过删除缺失数据>10%的项目生成更简短的清单。使用Cronbach's alpha检验内部效度。使用受试者工作特征曲线分析确定最佳截断分数。

结果

生成了一份完整的11项清单和一份7项更简短的清单。总共纳入了239名患者(143例FCD,96例非FCD诊断)。各亚组(FCD和其他神经认知障碍)的清单得分存在显著差异(F(2, 236)=313.3,p<0.001)。完整清单及其简短版本的曲线下面积均极佳(完整清单为0.97,95%CI 0.95至0.99;简短版本为0.96,95%CI 0.93至0.98)。识别FCD的最佳截断分数对应的特异性为97%,阳性预测值为91%。两个版本均显示出良好的内部效度(>0.80)。

结论

这项试点研究表明,一份简短的临床清单可作为一种快速补充工具,用于区分神经退行性疾病患者和FCD患者。有必要在不同人群中进行前瞻性盲法大规模验证。立即引用。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/832f/11873336/0fe2c52df5ba/bmjno-7-1-g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验