BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Face-to-face cognitive testing is not always possible in large studies. Therefore, we assessed the telephone Montreal Cognitive Assessment (T-MoCA: MoCA items not requiring pencil and paper or visual stimulus) and the modified Telephone Interview of Cognitive Status (TICSm) against face-to-face cognitive tests in patients with transient ischemic attack (TIA) or stroke. METHODS: In a population-based study, consecutive community-dwelling patients underwent the MoCA and neuropsychological battery >1 year after TIA or stroke, followed by T-MoCA (22 points) and TICSm (39 points) at least 1 month later. Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) was diagnosed using modified Petersen criteria and the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) determined for T-MoCA and TICSm. RESULTS: Ninety-one nondemented subjects completed neuropsychological testing (mean±SD age, 72.9±11.6 years; 54 males; stroke 49%) and 73 had telephone follow-up. MoCA subtest scores for repetition, abstraction, and verbal fluency were significantly worse (P<0.02) by telephone than during face-to-face testing. Reliability of diagnosis for MCI (AUC) were T-MoCA of 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-0.87) and TICSm of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.68-0.90) vs face-to-face MoCA of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.76-0.94). Optimal cutoffs were 18 to 19 for T-MoCA and 24 to 25 for TICSm. Reliability of diagnosis for MCI (AUC) was greater when only multi-domain impairment was considered (T-MoCA=0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96 and TICSm=0.83, 95% CI, 0.70-0.96) vs face-to-face MoCA=0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Both T-MoCA and TICSm are feasible and valid telephone tests of cognition after TIA and stroke but perform better in detecting multi-domain vs single-domain impairment. However, T-MoCA is limited in its ability to assess visuoexecutive and complex language tasks compared with face-to-face MoCA.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Face-to-face cognitive testing is not always possible in large studies. Therefore, we assessed the telephone Montreal Cognitive Assessment (T-MoCA: MoCA items not requiring pencil and paper or visual stimulus) and the modified Telephone Interview of Cognitive Status (TICSm) against face-to-face cognitive tests in patients with transient ischemic attack (TIA) or stroke. METHODS: In a population-based study, consecutive community-dwelling patients underwent the MoCA and neuropsychological battery >1 year after TIA or stroke, followed by T-MoCA (22 points) and TICSm (39 points) at least 1 month later. Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) was diagnosed using modified Petersen criteria and the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) determined for T-MoCA and TICSm. RESULTS: Ninety-one nondemented subjects completed neuropsychological testing (mean±SD age, 72.9±11.6 years; 54 males; stroke 49%) and 73 had telephone follow-up. MoCA subtest scores for repetition, abstraction, and verbal fluency were significantly worse (P<0.02) by telephone than during face-to-face testing. Reliability of diagnosis for MCI (AUC) were T-MoCA of 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-0.87) and TICSm of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.68-0.90) vs face-to-face MoCA of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.76-0.94). Optimal cutoffs were 18 to 19 for T-MoCA and 24 to 25 for TICSm. Reliability of diagnosis for MCI (AUC) was greater when only multi-domain impairment was considered (T-MoCA=0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96 and TICSm=0.83, 95% CI, 0.70-0.96) vs face-to-face MoCA=0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Both T-MoCA and TICSm are feasible and valid telephone tests of cognition after TIA and stroke but perform better in detecting multi-domain vs single-domain impairment. However, T-MoCA is limited in its ability to assess visuoexecutive and complex language tasks compared with face-to-face MoCA.
Authors: Ziad S Nasreddine; Natalie A Phillips; Valérie Bédirian; Simon Charbonneau; Victor Whitehead; Isabelle Collin; Jeffrey L Cummings; Howard Chertkow Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: K Narasimhalu; S Ang; D A De Silva; M-C Wong; H-M Chang; K-S Chia; A P Auchus; C Chen Journal: Neurology Date: 2009-12-01 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Vladimir Hachinski; Costantino Iadecola; Ron C Petersen; Monique M Breteler; David L Nyenhuis; Sandra E Black; William J Powers; Charles DeCarli; Jose G Merino; Raj N Kalaria; Harry V Vinters; David M Holtzman; Gary A Rosenberg; Anders Wallin; Martin Dichgans; John R Marler; Gabrielle G Leblanc Journal: Stroke Date: 2006-08-17 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: P M Rothwell; A J Coull; M F Giles; S C Howard; L E Silver; L M Bull; S A Gutnikov; P Edwards; D Mant; C M Sackley; A Farmer; P A G Sandercock; M S Dennis; C P Warlow; J M Bamford; P Anslow Journal: Lancet Date: 2004-06-12 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Juan C Pedemonte; George S Plummer; Shubham Chamadia; Joseph J Locascio; Eunice Hahm; Breanna Ethridge; Jacob Gitlin; Reine Ibala; Jennifer Mekonnen; Katia M Colon; M Brandon Westover; David A D'Alessandro; George Tolis; Timothy Houle; Kenneth T Shelton; Jason Qu; Oluwaseun Akeju Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: David B Reuben; Thomas M Gill; Alan Stevens; Jeff Williamson; Elena Volpi; Maya Lichtenstein; Lee A Jennings; Zaldy Tan; Leslie Evertson; David Bass; Lisa Weitzman; Martie Carnie; Nancy Wilson; Katy Araujo; Peter Charpentier; Can Meng; Erich J Greene; James Dziura; Jodi Liu; Erin Unger; Mia Yang; Katherine Currie; Kristin M Lenoir; Aval-NaʼRee S Green; Sitara Abraham; Ashley Vernon; Rafael Samper-Ternent; Mukaila Raji; Roxana M Hirst; Rebecca Galloway; Glen R Finney; Ilene Ladd; Alanna Kulchak Rahm; Pamela Borek; Peter Peduzzi Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-10-06 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Adrian Wong; David Nyenhuis; Sandra E Black; Lorraine S N Law; Eugene S K Lo; Pauline W L Kwan; Lisa Au; Anne Y Y Chan; Lawrence K S Wong; Ziad Nasreddine; Vincent Mok Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-02-19 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Alessandro Biffi; Abbas Rattani; Christopher D Anderson; Alison M Ayres; Edip M Gurol; Steven M Greenberg; Jonathan Rosand; Anand Viswanathan Journal: Brain Date: 2016-08-06 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Lydia Bunker; Tammy T Hshieh; Bonnie Wong; Eva M Schmitt; Thomas Travison; Jacqueline Yee; Kerry Palihnich; Eran Metzger; Tamara G Fong; Sharon K Inouye Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2016-08-09 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Alessandro Biffi; Destiny Bailey; Christopher D Anderson; Alison M Ayres; Edip M Gurol; Steven M Greenberg; Jonathan Rosand; Anand Viswanathan Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 18.302
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: Stephen Dj Makin; Fergus N Doubal; Kirsten Shuler; Francesca M Chappell; Julie Staals; Martin S Dennis; Joanna M Wardlaw Journal: Eur Stroke J Date: 2018-01-08