MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1136/bmjno-2024-000918

Медицинская библиотека · BMJ neurology open · 2025

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

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

СтатьяПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

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.

Для цитирования: 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. Development of a diagnostic checklist to identify functional cognitive disorder versus other neurocognitive disorders.. BMJ neurology open. 2025. DOI: 10.1136/bmjno-2024-000918.
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.