2 resultados para Assessment Instruments

em Hospitais da Universidade de Coimbra


Relevância:

60.00% 60.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

OBJECTIVE: To identify the instruments used to assess polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) in published studies. METHODS: A systematic literature review of clinical trials and longitudinal observational studies related to PMR, published from 1970 to 2014, was carried out. All outcome and assessment instruments were extracted and categorized according to core areas and domains, as defined by the OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology) Filter 2.0. RESULTS: Thirty-five articles (3221 patients) were included: 12 randomized controlled trials (RCT); 3 nonrandomized trials; and 20 observational studies. More than 20 domains were identified, measured by 29 different instruments. The most frequently used measures were pain, morning stiffness, patient global assessment and physician global assessment, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein. The definition of outcomes varied considerably between studies. CONCLUSION: The outcome measures and instruments used in PMR are numerous and diversely defined. The establishment of a core set of validated and standardized outcome measurements is needed.

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a brief instrument developed for the screening of milder forms of cognitive impairment, having surpassed the well-known limitations of the MMSE. The aim of the present study was to validate the MoCA as well as its short version, which was proposed by the NINDS-CSN VCI Harmonization Standards for screening Vascular Dementia (VaD) patients. The results, based on a homogeneous sample of 34 VaD patients, indicate that the MoCA is a psychometrically valid and reliable instrument for cognitive screening in VaD patients, showing excellent discriminant validity. Both the full and short versions of the MoCA had excellent diagnostic accuracy in discriminating VaD patients, exhibiting an area under curve (AUC) higher than the MMSE [AUC(MoCA full version) = .950; 95% IC = .868-.988; AUC(MoCA short version) = .936; 95% IC = .849-.981; AUC(MMSE) = .860; 95% IC = .754-.932]. With a cutoff below 17 on the MoCA full version and 8 on the short version, the results for sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and classification accuracy were superior compared to the MMSE. In conclusion, both versions of the MoCA are valid, reliable, sensitive and accurate screening instruments for VaD patients.