4.7 Article

A comparison of neuropsychological performance between US and Russia: Preparing for a global clinical trial

Journal

ALZHEIMERS & DEMENTIA
Volume 10, Issue 6, Pages 760-768

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1016/j.jalz.2014.02.008

Keywords

Cross-cultural comparison; Neuropsychological tests; Alzheimer's disease; Primary prevention delay of onset of MCI due to Alzheimer's disease

Funding

  1. Zinfandel Pharmaceuticals, Durham, NC
  2. Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Deerfield, IL
  3. National Institute on Aging [K01-AG029336, P30-AG028377]
  4. MURDOCK Study and Duke University's CTSA grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) [UL1-RR024128-01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Understanding regional differences in cognitive performance is important for interpretation of data from large multinational clinical trials. Methods: Data from Durham and Cabarrus Counties in North Carolina, USA and Tomsk, Russia (n = 2972) were evaluated. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Trail Making Test Part B (Trails B), Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease Word List Memory Test (WLM) delayed recall, and self-report Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Studies Mail-In Cognitive Function Screening Instrument (MCFSI) were administered at each site. Multilevel modeling measured the variance explained by site and predictors of cognitive performance. Results: Site differences accounted for 11% of the variation in the MoCA, 1.6% in Trails B, 1.7% in WLM, and 0.8% in MCFSI scores. Prior memory testing was significantly associated with WLM. Diabetes and stroke were significantly associated with Trails B and MCFSI. Conclusions: Sources of variation include cultural differences, health conditions, and exposure to test stimuli. Findings highlight the importance of local norms to interpret test performance. (C) 2014 The Alzheimer's Association. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available