Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Virtual Reality Functional Capacity Assessment Tool (VRFCAT-SL) in Parkinson's Disease
Turner TH, Atkins A, Keefe RSE.. Journal of Parkinson's disease, 2021-01-01
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Background Cognitive impairment is common in Parkinson's disease (PD) and highly associated with loss of independence, caregiver burden, and assisted living placement. The need for cognitive functional capacity tools validated for use in PD clinical and research applications has thus been emphasized in the literature. The Virtual Reality Functional Capacity Assessment Tool (VRFCAT-SL) is a tablet-based instrument that assesses proficiency for performing real world tasks in a highly realistic environment. Objective The present study explored application of the VRFCAT-SL in clinical assessments of patients with PD. Specifically, we examined associations between VRFCAT-SL performance and measures of cognition, motor severity, and self-reported cognitive functioning. Methods The VRFCAT-SL was completed by a sample of 29 PD patients seen in clinic for a comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation. Fifteen patients met Movement Disorders Society Task Force criteria for mild cognitive impairment (PD-MCI); no patients were diagnosed with dementia. Non-parametric correlations between VRFCAT-SL performance and standardized neuropsychological tests and clinical measures were examined. Results VRFCAT-SL performance was moderately associated with global rank on neuropsychological testing and discriminated PD-MCI. Follow-up analyses found completion time was associated with visual memory, sustained attention, and set-switching, while errors were associated with psychomotor inhibition. No clinical or motor measures were associated with VRFCAT-SL performance. Self-report was not associated with VRFCAT-SL or neuropsychological test performance. Conclusion The VRFCAT-SL appears to provide a useful measure of cognitive functional capacity that is not confounded by PD motor symptoms. Future studies will examine utility in PD dementia.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Turner, T. H., Atkins, A., & Keefe, R. S. E. (2021). Virtual Reality Functional Capacity Assessment Tool (VRFCAT-SL) in Parkinson's Disease. Journal of Parkinson's disease. https://doi.org/10.3233/jpd-212688
Vancouver
Turner TH, Atkins A, Keefe RSE. Virtual Reality Functional Capacity Assessment Tool (VRFCAT-SL) in Parkinson's Disease. Journal of Parkinson's disease. 2021. doi:10.3233/jpd-212688. PMID: 34334421.
BibTeX
@article{turner2021-34334421,
author = {Turner, T. H. and Atkins, A. and Keefe, R. S. E.},
title = {{Virtual Reality Functional Capacity Assessment Tool (VRFCAT-SL) in Parkinson's Disease}},
journal = {Journal of Parkinson's disease},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.3233/jpd-212688},
pmid = {34334421},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jpd-212688}
}
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.
Key findings
- Background Cognitive impairment is common in Parkinson's disease (PD) and highly associated with loss of independence, caregiver burden, and assisted living placement.
- Results VRFCAT-SL performance was moderately associated with global rank on neuropsychological testing and discriminated PD-MCI.
- Follow-up analyses found completion time was associated with visual memory, sustained attention, and set-switching, while errors were associated with psychomotor inhibition.
- No clinical or motor measures were associated with VRFCAT-SL performance.
- Self-report was not associated with VRFCAT-SL or neuropsychological test performance.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Parkinson's disease) |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 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 | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 34334421) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 25 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100. |
| Total | 43 / 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.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also in Cognitive tests and assessment
109 studies in the library are filed under Cognitive tests and assessment with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Cognitive tests and assessment hub.