BACKGROUND: The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is the most widely used instrument for the screening of cognitive impairment worldwide, but its ability to produce valid estimates of dementia in populations of low socioeconomic status and minimal literacy skills has not been adequately established. The authors investigated the psychometric properties of the MMSE in a community-based sample of older Brazilians. METHOD: Cross-sectional one-phase population-based study of all residents of pre-defined areas of the city of Sao Paulo, aged 65 years or over. The Brazilian version of the MMSE was compared with DSM-IV diagnosis of dementia assessed with a harmonized one-phase procedure developed by the 10/66 Dementia Research Group. RESULTS: Analyses were performed with 1,933 participants of the SPAH study. Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that the MMSE cut-point of 14/15 was associated with 78.7% sensitivity and 77.8% specificity for the diagnosis of dementia amongst participants with no formal education, and the cut-point 17/18 with 91.9% sensitivity and 89.5% specificity for those with at least 1 year of formal education (areas under the curves 0.87 and 0.94, respectively; P = 0.03). Even with these best fitting cut-points, the MMSE estimate of the prevalence of dementia was four times higher than determined by the DSM-IV criteria. Education, age, sex and income influenced MMSE scores, independently of dementia caseness. CONCLUSION: The MMSE is an adequate tool for screening dementia in older adults with minimum literacy skills, but misclassification is unacceptably high for older adults who are illiterate, which has serious consequences for research and clinical practice in low and middle income countries, where the proportion of illiteracy among older adults is high.
BACKGROUND: The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is the most widely used instrument for the screening of cognitive impairment worldwide, but its ability to produce valid estimates of dementia in populations of low socioeconomic status and minimal literacy skills has not been adequately established. The authors investigated the psychometric properties of the MMSE in a community-based sample of older Brazilians. METHOD: Cross-sectional one-phase population-based study of all residents of pre-defined areas of the city of Sao Paulo, aged 65 years or over. The Brazilian version of the MMSE was compared with DSM-IV diagnosis of dementia assessed with a harmonized one-phase procedure developed by the 10/66 Dementia Research Group. RESULTS: Analyses were performed with 1,933 participants of the SPAH study. Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that the MMSE cut-point of 14/15 was associated with 78.7% sensitivity and 77.8% specificity for the diagnosis of dementia amongst participants with no formal education, and the cut-point 17/18 with 91.9% sensitivity and 89.5% specificity for those with at least 1 year of formal education (areas under the curves 0.87 and 0.94, respectively; P = 0.03). Even with these best fitting cut-points, the MMSE estimate of the prevalence of dementia was four times higher than determined by the DSM-IV criteria. Education, age, sex and income influenced MMSE scores, independently of dementia caseness. CONCLUSION: The MMSE is an adequate tool for screening dementia in older adults with minimum literacy skills, but misclassification is unacceptably high for older adults who are illiterate, which has serious consequences for research and clinical practice in low and middle income countries, where the proportion of illiteracy among older adults is high.
Authors: Cleusa P Ferri; Martin Prince; Carol Brayne; Henry Brodaty; Laura Fratiglioni; Mary Ganguli; Kathleen Hall; Kazuo Hasegawa; Hugh Hendrie; Yueqin Huang; Anthony Jorm; Colin Mathers; Paulo R Menezes; Elizabeth Rimmer; Marcia Scazufca Journal: Lancet Date: 2005-12-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: J C Morris; A Heyman; R C Mohs; J P Hughes; G van Belle; G Fillenbaum; E D Mellits; C Clark Journal: Neurology Date: 1989-09 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Diana Matallana; Cecilia de Santacruz; Carlos Cano; Pablo Reyes; Rafael Samper-Ternent; Kyriakos S Markides; Kenneth J Ottenbacher; Carlos A Reyes-Ortiz Journal: J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol Date: 2010-06-10 Impact factor: 2.680
Authors: Christopher R Carpenter; Elizabeth R Bassett; Grant M Fischer; Jonathan Shirshekan; James E Galvin; John C Morris Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Christopher R Carpenter; Bobby DesPain; Travis N Keeling; Mansi Shah; Morgan Rothenberger Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2010-09-19 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Kieu T T Phung; Monique Chaaya; Gunhild Waldemar; Samir Atweh; Khalil Asmar; Husam Ghusn; Georges Karam; Raja Sawaya; Rose Mary Khoury; Ibrahim Zeinaty; Sandrine Salman; Salem Hammoud; Wael Radwan; Nazem Bassil; Martin Prince Journal: J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol Date: 2014-04-25 Impact factor: 2.680
Authors: Julius Griauzde; Lynda D Lisabeth; Chengwei Li; Brisa N Sanchez; Erin Case; Nelda M Garcia; Lewis B Morgenstern; Darin B Zahuranec Journal: J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2018-09-28 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Reena V Jayani; Allison M Magnuson; Can-Lan Sun; Huiyan Ma; William P Tew; Supriya G Mohile; Ajeet Gajra; Heidi D Klepin; Cary P Gross; Hyman B Muss; Andrew E Chapman; Vani Katheria; Arti Hurria; William Dale Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2019-12-06 Impact factor: 3.599