BACKGROUND: To examine the discriminant validity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in detecting patients with cognitive impairment at higher risk for dementia at a memory clinic setting. METHODS: Memory clinic patients were administered the MoCA, MMSE, and a comprehensive formal neuropsychological battery. Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) subtypes were dichotomized into two groups: single domain-MCI (sd-MCI) and multiple domain-MCI (md-MCI). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was used to compare the discriminatory ability of the MoCA and the MMSE. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty patients were recruited, of which 136 (59.1%) were diagnosed with dementia, 61 (26.5%) with MCI, and 33 (14.3%) with no cognitive impairment (NCI). The majority of MCI patients had md-MCI (n = 36, 59%). The MoCA had significantly larger AUCs than the MMSE in discriminating md-MCI from the lower risk group for incident dementia (NCI and sd-MCI) [MoCA 0.92 (95% CI, 0.86-0.98) vs. MMSE 0.84 (95% CI, 0.75-0.92), p = 0.02). At their optimal cut-off points, the MoCA (19/20) remained superior to the MMSE (23/24) in detecting md-MCI [sensitivity: 0.83 vs. 0.72; specificity: 0.86 vs. 0.83; PPV: 0.79 vs. 0.72; NPV: 0.89 vs. 0.83; correctly classified: 85.1% vs. 78.7%]. CONCLUSION: The MoCA is superior to the MMSE in the detection of patients with cognitive impairment at higher risk for incident dementia at a memory clinic setting.
BACKGROUND: To examine the discriminant validity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in detecting patients with cognitive impairment at higher risk for dementia at a memory clinic setting. METHODS: Memory clinic patients were administered the MoCA, MMSE, and a comprehensive formal neuropsychological battery. Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) subtypes were dichotomized into two groups: single domain-MCI (sd-MCI) and multiple domain-MCI (md-MCI). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was used to compare the discriminatory ability of the MoCA and the MMSE. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty patients were recruited, of which 136 (59.1%) were diagnosed with dementia, 61 (26.5%) with MCI, and 33 (14.3%) with no cognitive impairment (NCI). The majority of MCI patients had md-MCI (n = 36, 59%). The MoCA had significantly larger AUCs than the MMSE in discriminating md-MCI from the lower risk group for incident dementia (NCI and sd-MCI) [MoCA 0.92 (95% CI, 0.86-0.98) vs. MMSE 0.84 (95% CI, 0.75-0.92), p = 0.02). At their optimal cut-off points, the MoCA (19/20) remained superior to the MMSE (23/24) in detecting md-MCI [sensitivity: 0.83 vs. 0.72; specificity: 0.86 vs. 0.83; PPV: 0.79 vs. 0.72; NPV: 0.89 vs. 0.83; correctly classified: 85.1% vs. 78.7%]. CONCLUSION: The MoCA is superior to the MMSE in the detection of patients with cognitive impairment at higher risk for incident dementia at a memory clinic setting.
Authors: Sarah E Monsell; Hiroko H Dodge; Xiao-Hua Zhou; Yunqi Bu; Lilah M Besser; Charles Mock; Stephen E Hawes; Walter A Kukull; Sandra Weintraub Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2016 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Elizabeth P Handing; Stephen R Rapp; Shyh-Huei Chen; W Jack Rejeski; Marie Wiberg; Karen Bandeen-Roche; Suzanne Craft; Dalane Kitzman; Edward H Ip Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2021-03-31 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Petra Scheerbaum; Stephanie Book; Michael Jank; Etienne Hanslian; Melanie DellO'ro; Julia Schneider; Julia-Sophia Scheuermann; Sophia Bösl; Michael Jeitler; Christian Kessler; Elmar Graessel Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: David R Roalf; Paul J Moberg; Sharon X Xie; David A Wolk; Stephen T Moelter; Steven E Arnold Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2012-12-21 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Jane S Saczynski; Sharon K Inouye; Jamey Guess; Richard N Jones; Tamara G Fong; Emese Nemeth; Ariel Hodara; Long Ngo; Edward R Marcantonio Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2015-10-27 Impact factor: 5.562
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