BACKGROUND: The UK national Dementia Strategy clearly outlines a case for early detection and diagnosis of dementia. There is thus a need for a brief screening test for dementia in primary care, which can be administered and scored easily. AIM: To compare the performance of two cognitive scales, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and 6 Item Cognitive Impairment Test (6-CIT), as screening test for dementia in a naturalistic setting. METHODS: 209 subjects referred to Old Age Psychiatry service were retrospectively studied. Their MMSE and 6-CIT scores were used to compare sensitivity, specificity and the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curves for diagnosis of dementia. RESULTS: The correlation between the MMSE score and 6-CIT score is - 0.822. The MMSE has a sensitivity of 79.7% and specificity of 86.4% (cut-off 23/24). The 6-CIT has a sensitivity and specificity of 82.5% and 90.9% respectively (cut-off 10/11). The sensitivity of the 6-CIT increases to 90.2% at a lower cut-off of 9/10, but the corresponding specificity drops to 83.3%. CONCLUSION: The 6-CIT is a brief and simple test of cognition, which correlates reasonably well with the MMSE in a naturalistic setting. Compared with the MMSE it performs well as a screening instrument for dementia, which makes it a more appropriate test for primary care usage.
BACKGROUND: The UK national Dementia Strategy clearly outlines a case for early detection and diagnosis of dementia. There is thus a need for a brief screening test for dementia in primary care, which can be administered and scored easily. AIM: To compare the performance of two cognitive scales, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and 6 Item Cognitive Impairment Test (6-CIT), as screening test for dementia in a naturalistic setting. METHODS: 209 subjects referred to Old Age Psychiatry service were retrospectively studied. Their MMSE and 6-CIT scores were used to compare sensitivity, specificity and the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curves for diagnosis of dementia. RESULTS: The correlation between the MMSE score and 6-CIT score is - 0.822. The MMSE has a sensitivity of 79.7% and specificity of 86.4% (cut-off 23/24). The 6-CIT has a sensitivity and specificity of 82.5% and 90.9% respectively (cut-off 10/11). The sensitivity of the 6-CIT increases to 90.2% at a lower cut-off of 9/10, but the corresponding specificity drops to 83.3%. CONCLUSION: The 6-CIT is a brief and simple test of cognition, which correlates reasonably well with the MMSE in a naturalistic setting. Compared with the MMSE it performs well as a screening instrument for dementia, which makes it a more appropriate test for primary care usage.
Authors: Romee van Dam; Jeanine M Van Ancum; Sjors Verlaan; Kira Scheerman; Carel G M Meskers; Andrea B Maier Journal: Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord Date: 2018-06-18 Impact factor: 2.959
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
Authors: Vincent D Pierik; Carel G M Meskers; Jeanine M Van Ancum; Siger T Numans; Sjors Verlaan; Kira Scheerman; Roeliene C Kruizinga; Andrea B Maier Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2017-06-05 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Sam T Creavin; Susanna Wisniewski; Anna H Noel-Storr; Clare M Trevelyan; Thomas Hampton; Dane Rayment; Victoria M Thom; Kirsty J E Nash; Hosam Elhamoui; Rowena Milligan; Anish S Patel; Demitra V Tsivos; Tracey Wing; Emma Phillips; Sophie M Kellman; Hannah L Shackleton; Georgina F Singleton; Bethany E Neale; Martha E Watton; Sarah Cullum Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2016-01-13
Authors: Edmée J M Schrijver; Oscar J de Vries; Astrid Verburg; Karola de Graaf; Pierre M Bet; Peter M van de Ven; Ad M Kamper; Sabine Ha Diepeveen; Sander Anten; Andrea Siegel; Esther Kuipéri; Anne M Lagaay; Rob J van Marum; Astrid M van Strien; Leo Boelaarts; Douwe Pons; Mark H H Kramer; Prabath W B Nanayakkara Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2014-08-28 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Dawn O'Sullivan; Noeleen Brady; Edmund Manning; Emma O'Shea; Síle O'Grady; Niamh O 'Regan; Suzanne Timmons Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Jeanine M Van Ancum; Mirjam Pijnappels; Nini H Jonkman; Kira Scheerman; Sjors Verlaan; Carel G M Meskers; Andrea B Maier Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 3.921