Home › Research › Prevention trials
Cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis: clinical management, MRI, and therapeutic avenues
Benedict RHB, Amato MP, DeLuca J, Geurts JJG.. The Lancet. Neurology, 2020-09-16
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Multiple sclerosis is a chronic, demyelinating disease of the CNS. Cognitive impairment is a sometimes neglected, yet common, sign and symptom with a profound effect on instrumental activities of daily living. The prevalence of cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis varies across the lifespan and might be difficult to distinguish from other causes in older age. MRI studies show that widespread changes to brain networks contribute to cognitive dysfunction, and grey matter atrophy is an early sign of potential future cognitive decline. Neuropsychological research suggests that cognitive processing speed and episodic memory are the most frequently affected cognitive domains. Narrowing evaluation to these core areas permits brief, routine assessment in the clinical setting. Owing to its brevity, reliability, and sensitivity, the Symbol Digit Modalities Test, or its computer-based analogues, can be used to monitor episodes of acute disease activity. The Symbol Digit Modalities Test can also be used in clinical trials, and data increasingly show that cognitive processing speed and memory are amenable to cognitive training interventions.
Key findings
- Neuropsychological research suggests that cognitive processing speed and episodic memory are the most frequently affected cognitive domains.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 50/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (The Lancet. Neurology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 32949546) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 29 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100. |
| Total | 50 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Benedict, R. H. B., Amato, M. P., DeLuca, J., & Geurts, J. J. G. (2020). Cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis: clinical management, MRI, and therapeutic avenues. The Lancet. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-4422(20)30277-5
Vancouver
Benedict RHB, Amato MP, DeLuca J, Geurts JJG. Cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis: clinical management, MRI, and therapeutic avenues. The Lancet. Neurology. 2020. doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(20)30277-5. PMID: 32949546.
BibTeX
@article{benedict2020-32949546,
author = {Benedict, R. H. B. and Amato, M. P. and DeLuca, J. and Geurts, J. J. G.},
title = {{Cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis: clinical management, MRI, and therapeutic avenues}},
journal = {The Lancet. Neurology},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.1016/s1474-4422(20)30277-5},
pmid = {32949546},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-4422(20)30277-5}
}
Related studies in Prevention trials
Also tagged “assessment”
840 studies in the library carry the topic tag “assessment”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 840 tagged studies.