OBJECTIVE: To investigate the performance and usability of the Six-Item Cognitive Impairment Test (6CIT) as a screening instrument for cognitive impairment in older, general hospital inpatients/outpatients. METHOD: In 253 general hospital patients aged ≥ 70 years, diagnostic accuracy of the 6CIT and time required to administer it were assessed using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) as the criterion standard. RESULTS: The (negative) correlation between the 6CIT and the MMSE was very high (r = -0.82). Optimal comparability was found using a MMSE cutoff of ≤19 for lower and ≤23 for higher educated patients, at a cutoff of ≥11 on the 6CIT that was not sensitive to educational level. The sensitivity of the 6CIT was 0.90 and the specificity was 0.96, whereas the positive predictive value was 0.83 and the negative predictive value was 0.98. The area under the curve was 0.95. The mean administration time was 5.8 min for the MMSE and 2.5 min for the 6CIT (p ≤ 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic accuracy of the 6CIT was high. As the 6CIT is not sensitive to educational level, does not require advanced language skills, only takes a few minutes to administer and is very easy to use, it appears to be a suitable screening instrument for cognitive impairment in older patients in the general hospital.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the performance and usability of the Six-Item Cognitive Impairment Test (6CIT) as a screening instrument for cognitive impairment in older, general hospital inpatients/outpatients. METHOD: In 253 general hospital patients aged ≥ 70 years, diagnostic accuracy of the 6CIT and time required to administer it were assessed using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) as the criterion standard. RESULTS: The (negative) correlation between the 6CIT and the MMSE was very high (r = -0.82). Optimal comparability was found using a MMSE cutoff of ≤19 for lower and ≤23 for higher educated patients, at a cutoff of ≥11 on the 6CIT that was not sensitive to educational level. The sensitivity of the 6CIT was 0.90 and the specificity was 0.96, whereas the positive predictive value was 0.83 and the negative predictive value was 0.98. The area under the curve was 0.95. The mean administration time was 5.8 min for the MMSE and 2.5 min for the 6CIT (p ≤ 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic accuracy of the 6CIT was high. As the 6CIT is not sensitive to educational level, does not require advanced language skills, only takes a few minutes to administer and is very easy to use, it appears to be a suitable screening instrument for cognitive impairment in older patients in the general hospital.
Authors: Cassandra L Hua; Kali S Thomas; Jennifer N Bunker; Pedro L Gozalo; Emmanuelle Bélanger; Susan L Mitchell; Joan M Teno Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-11-19 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Andreas Ihle; Élvio R Gouveia; Bruna R Gouveia; Duarte L Freitas; Jefferson Jurema; Rui T Ornelas; António M Antunes; Bárbara R Muniz; Matthias Kliegel Journal: Eur J Ageing Date: 2017-10-09
Authors: Marina Green-Gomez; Paul S Bernstein; Christine A Curcio; Rachel Moran; Warren Roche; John M Nolan Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2019-12-18 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Marije J Strijbos; Bas Steunenberg; Roos C van der Mast; Sharon K Inouye; Marieke J Schuurmans Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2013-07-23 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Anne Heaven; Francine Cheater; Andrew Clegg; Michelle Collinson; Amanda Farrin; Anne Forster; Mary Godfrey; Liz Graham; Anne Grice; Rachel Holt; Claire Hulme; Ernie Lloyd; David Meads; Chris North; John Young; Najma Siddiqi Journal: Trials Date: 2014-02-05 Impact factor: 2.279
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