Comparative analysis of rowland universal dementia assessment scale and mini-mental state examination in cognitive assessment of traumatic brain injury patients
Affiliations: [a] Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, the Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Changzhou, China
| [b] Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, School of Clinical Medicine, Soochow University, Soochow, China
| [c] Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, People’s Hospital of Deyang City, Sichuan, China
Correspondence:
[*]
Address for correspondence: Yi Zhang, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, the Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, No. 185, Juqian Street, Tianning Area, Changzhou, 213003, China. E-mail: [email protected].
Abstract: BACKGROUND:Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) has demonstrated usefulness in cognitive assessment. Studies supporting the use of RUDAS as an evaluation tool in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients remain limited. This study examined whether the Chinese version of RUDAS can be effectively applied to the cognitive assessment of TBI patients in China. OBJECTIVE:To compare the performance of Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Chinese version of RUDAS in the cognitive assessment of Chinese patients with TBI so as to provide reference for clinical use. METHODS:86 inpatients with TBI in a hospital were selected from July 2019 to July 2020 and were enrolled as the TBI group, while another 40 healthy individuals matched with age, sex and education level were selected as the control group. All subjects were assessed by trained rehabilitation physicians with MMSE and RUDAS. RESULTS:(1) Compared with the control group, the scores of MMSE and RUDAS in the TBI group decreased significantly; (2) The results of MMSE and RUDAS in the TBI group were positively correlated (r = 0.611, P < 0.001); (3) Linear correlation suggested that age was negatively correlated with MMSE (r = –0.344, P = 0.001) and RUDAS (r = –0.407, P < 0.001), while education years were positively correlated with MMSE (r = 0.367, P = 0.001) and RUDAS (r = 0.375, P < 0.001). However, according to the multiple linear regression, the results of RUDAS were not affected by the years of education; (4) Receiver operating curve analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the areas under the curve between MMSE and RUDAS. The best cut-off values of MMSE and RUDAS were 27.5 and 24.5, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:MMSE and RUDAS have similar diagnostic efficacy in evaluating cognitive impairment of patients with TBI. Since the Chinese version of RUDAS is not affected by the education level, it is more suitable for TBI patients in China.
