Dataset Information

Screening for Dementia in Older Adults: Comparison of Mini-Mental State Examination, Mini-Cog, Clock Drawing Test and AD8.

ABSTRACT: This study was conducted to estimate screening performance of dementia screening tools including Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Mini-Cog, Clock Drawing Test (CDT) and Ascertain Dementia 8 questionnaire (AD8) for older adults. 2015 participants aged 65 years or more in eastern China were enrolled. 4 screening tests were administered and scored by specifically trained psychiatrists. We used data from two-by-two tables to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV/NPV). Our study showed that dementia was highly prevalent among elderly in Zhejiang province. The Mini-Cog, with excellent screening characteristics and spending less time, could be considered to be used as a screening tool among communities to help to diagnose dementia early.

SUBMITTER: Yang L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5179268 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Screening for Dementia in Older Adults: Comparison of Mini-Mental State Examination, Mini-Cog, Clock Drawing Test and AD8.

Yang Li L Yan Jing J Jin Xiaoqing X Jin Yu Y Yu Wei W Xu Shanhu S Wu Haibin H

PloS one 20161222 12

This study was conducted to estimate screening performance of dementia screening tools including Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Mini-Cog, Clock Drawing Test (CDT) and Ascertain Dementia 8 questionnaire (AD8) for older adults. 2015 participants aged 65 years or more in eastern China were enrolled. 4 screening tests were administered and scored by specifically trained psychiatrists. We used data from two-by-two tables to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative pred ...[more]

PMID: 28006822

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Mini-Mental State Examination-Second Edition (MMSE-2) consists of three visions: a brief version (MMSE-2:BV), a standard version (MMSE-2:SV), and an expanded version (MMSE-2: EV). Each version was equipped with alternate forms (blue and red). There was a lack of evidence on the practice effect and test-retest reliability of the three versions of the MMSE-2, limiting its utility in both clinical and research settings. The purpose of this study was to examine the practice effect and test-retest reliability of the MMSE-2 in people with dementia.MethodsOne hundred and twenty participants were enrolled, of which 60 were administered with the blue form twice (i.e., the same-form group, [SF group]) and 60 were administered with the blue form first and then the red form (alternate-form group, [AF group]). The practice effect was evaluated using a paired t-test and Cohen's d. The test-retest reliability was examined using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).ResultsFor the practice effects, in the SF group, no statistically significant differences were found for the MMSE-2:BV and MMSE-2: EV total scores and eight subtests (p = 0.061-1.000), except for the MMSE-2:SV total score (p = 0.029). In the AF group, no statistically significant differences were found for all three versions of the total scores and subtests (p = 0.106-1.000), except for the visual-constructional ability subtest (p = 0.010). Cohen's d of all three versions' total scores and subtests were 0.00-0.20 and 0.00-0.26 for SF group and AF group, respectively. For the test-retest reliability, ICC values for all three versions and eight subtests in SF and AF groups were 0.60-0.93 and 0.56-0.93, respectively.ConclusionOur results demonstrated that the practice effect could be minimized when alternate forms of the MMSE-2 were used. The MMSE-2 had good to excellent test-retest reliability, except for three subtests (i.e., visual-constructional ability, registration, and recall). Caution should be taken when interpreting the results of visual-constructional ability, registration, and recall subtests of the MMSE-2.

Project description:BackgroundDisease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer's disease highlight the need for early detection of cognitive decline. However, at present, most primary care providers do not perform routine cognitive testing, in part due to a lack of access to practical cognitive assessments, as well as time and resources to administer and interpret the tests. Brief and sensitive digital cognitive assessments, such as the Digital Clock and Recall (DCR™), have the potential to address this need. Here, we examine the advantages of DCR over the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in detecting mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and mild dementia.MethodsWe studied 706 participants from the multisite Bio-Hermes study (age mean ± SD = 71.5 ± 6.7; 58.9% female; years of education mean ± SD = 15.4 ± 2.7; primary language English), classified as cognitively unimpaired (CU; n = 360), mild cognitive impairment (MCI; n = 234), or probable mild Alzheimer's dementia (pAD; n = 111) based on a review of medical history with selected cognitive and imaging tests. We evaluated cognitive classifications (MCI and early dementia) based on the DCR and the MMSE against cohorts based on the results of the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT), the Trail Making Test-Part B (TMT-B), and the Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ). We also compared the influence of demographic variables such as race (White vs. Non-White), ethnicity (Hispanic vs. Non-Hispanic), and level of education (≥ 15 years vs. < 15 years) on the DCR and MMSE scores.ResultsThe DCR was superior on average to the MMSE in classifying mild cognitive impairment and early dementia, AUC = 0.70 for the DCR vs. 0.63 for the MMSE. DCR administration was also significantly faster (completed in less than 3 min regardless of cognitive status and age). Among 104 individuals who were labeled as "cognitively unimpaired" by the MMSE (score ≥ 28) but actually had verbal memory impairment as confirmed by the RAVLT, the DCR identified 84 (80.7%) as impaired. Moreover, the DCR score was significantly less biased by ethnicity than the MMSE, with no significant difference in the DCR score between Hispanic and non-Hispanic individuals.ConclusionsDCR outperforms the MMSE in detecting and classifying cognitive impairment-in a fraction of the time-while being not influenced by a patient's ethnicity. The results support the utility of DCR as a sensitive and efficient cognitive assessment in primary care settings.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04733989.

Project description:BackgroundThe Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) are useful screening tools for mild cognitive impairment (MCI). However, these tests require qualified in-person supervision and the CDR can take up to 60 min to complete. We developed a digital cognitive screening test (M-CogScore) that can be completed remotely in under 5 min without supervision. We set out to validate M-CogScore in head-to-head comparisons with CDR and MMSE.MethodsTo ascertain the validity of the M-CogScore, we enrolled participants as healthy controls or impaired cognition, matched for age, sex, and education. Participants completed the 30-item paper MMSE Second Edition Standard Version (MMSE-2), paper CDR, and smartphone-based M-CogScore. The digital M-CogScore test is based on time-normalised scores from smartphone-adapted Stroop (M-Stroop), digit-symbols (M-Symbols), and delayed recall tests (M-Memory). We used Spearman's correlation coefficient to determine the convergent validity between M-CogScore and the 30-item MMSE-2, and non-parametric tests to determine its discriminative validity with a CDR label of normal (CDR 0) or impaired cognition (CDR 0.5 or 1). M-CogScore was further compared to MMSE-2 using area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) with corresponding optimal cut-offs.Results72 participants completed all three tests. The M-CogScore correlated with both MMSE-2 (rho = 0.54, p < 0.0001) and impaired cognition on CDR (Mann Whitney U = 187, p < 0.001). M-CogScore achieved an AUC of 0.85 (95% bootstrapped CI [0.80, 0.91]), when differentiating between normal and impaired cognition, compared to an AUC of 0.78 [0.72, 0.84] for MMSE-2 (p = 0.21).ConclusionDigital screening tests such as M-CogScore are desirable to aid in rapid and remote clinical cognitive evaluations. M-CogScore was significantly correlated with established cognitive tests, including CDR and MMSE-2. M-CogScore can be taken remotely without supervision, is automatically scored, has less of a ceiling effect than the MMSE-2, and takes significantly less time to complete.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Clinical monitoring of patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) for cognitive decline is an important element of care. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) has been proposed to be a sensitive tool for assessing cognitive impairment in PD. The aim of our study was to compare the responsiveness of the MoCA to decline in cognition to the responsiveness of the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Scales for Outcomes of Parkinson's disease-cognition (SCOPA-Cog). METHODS:PD patients without dementia were enrolled at 6 North American movement disorders centers between 2008 and 2011. Participants received annual evaluations including the MoCA, MMSE, and SCOPA-Cog followed by formal neuropsychological testing. The gold standard for change in cognition was defined as the change on the neuropsychological test scores over the annual assessments. The Reliable Change Method was used to provide an estimate of the probability that a given difference score would be obtained by chance. The sensitivity of the MoCA, MMSE, and SCOPA-Cog to change was quantified using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves. RESULTS:One hundred seventeen patients were included in the analysis. Participants were followed at mean intervals of 11 ± 2 months for a median of 2 (maximum 5) visits. According to the reliable change index, 56 intervals of cognitive testing showed a decline in global cognition. ROC analysis of change in MoCA, MMSE, and SCOPA-Cog global scores compared to gold standard testing found an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.55 (95% CI 0.48-0.62), 0.56 (0.48-0.63), and 0.63 (0.55-0.70) respectively. There were no significant differences in the AUCs across the tests. The sensitivity of the MoCA, MMSE, and SCOPA-Cog to change at various thresholds for decline in scores reached a maximum of 71% for a cut-off of 1 point change on the SCOPA-Cog. CONCLUSION:Using neuropsychological testing as a gold standard comparator, the performance of the MoCA, MMSE, and SCOPA-Cog for detecting decline in non-demented PD patients over a 1-year interval is poor. This has implications for clinical practice; stable scores may not be taken as reassurance of the absence of cognitive decline.

Dataset Information

Screening for Dementia in Older Adults: Comparison of Mini-Mental State Examination, Mini-Cog, Clock Drawing Test and AD8.

Publications

Screening for Dementia in Older Adults: Comparison of Mini-Mental State Examination, Mini-Cog, Clock Drawing Test and AD8.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets