BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the utility and diagnostic accuracy of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in a clinical cohort. METHODS: Three hundred twenty-one AD, 126 MCI, and 140 older adults with healthy cognition (HC) were evaluated using the MMSE, the MoCA, a standardized neuropsychologic battery according to the Consortium to Establish a Registry of Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD-NB), and an informant-based measure of functional impairment, the Dementia Severity Rating Scale (DSRS). Diagnostic accuracy and optimal cut-off scores were calculated for each measure, and a method for converting MoCA to MMSE scores is presented. RESULTS: The MMSE and MoCA offer reasonably good diagnostic and classification accuracy as compared with the more detailed CERAD-NB; however, as a brief cognitive screening measure, the MoCA was more sensitive and had higher classification accuracy for differentiating MCI from HC. Complementing the MMSE or the MoCA with the DSRS significantly improved diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSION: The findings support recent data indicating that the MoCA is superior to the MMSE as a global assessment tool, particularly in discerning earlier stages of cognitive decline. In addition, we found that overall diagnostic accuracy improves when the MMSE or MoCA is combined with an informant-based functional measure. Finally, we provide a reliable and easy conversion of MoCA to MMSE scores. However, the need for MCI-specific measures is still needed to increase the diagnostic specificity between AD and MCI. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the utility and diagnostic accuracy of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in a clinical cohort. METHODS: Three hundred twenty-one AD, 126 MCI, and 140 older adults with healthy cognition (HC) were evaluated using the MMSE, the MoCA, a standardized neuropsychologic battery according to the Consortium to Establish a Registry of Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD-NB), and an informant-based measure of functional impairment, the Dementia Severity Rating Scale (DSRS). Diagnostic accuracy and optimal cut-off scores were calculated for each measure, and a method for converting MoCA to MMSE scores is presented. RESULTS: The MMSE and MoCA offer reasonably good diagnostic and classification accuracy as compared with the more detailed CERAD-NB; however, as a brief cognitive screening measure, the MoCA was more sensitive and had higher classification accuracy for differentiating MCI from HC. Complementing the MMSE or the MoCA with the DSRS significantly improved diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSION: The findings support recent data indicating that the MoCA is superior to the MMSE as a global assessment tool, particularly in discerning earlier stages of cognitive decline. In addition, we found that overall diagnostic accuracy improves when the MMSE or MoCA is combined with an informant-based functional measure. Finally, we provide a reliable and easy conversion of MoCA to MMSE scores. However, the need for MCI-specific measures is still needed to increase the diagnostic specificity between AD and MCI. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Eun Hyun Seo; Dong Young Lee; Jung Hie Lee; Il Han Choo; Jee Wook Kim; Shin Gyeom Kim; Shin Young Park; Ji Hye Shin; Yeon Ja Do; Jong Choul Yoon; Jin Hyeong Jhoo; Ki Woong Kim; Jong Inn Woo Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: J C Dalrymple-Alford; M R MacAskill; C T Nakas; L Livingston; C Graham; G P Crucian; T R Melzer; J Kirwan; R Keenan; S Wells; R J Porter; R Watts; T J Anderson Journal: Neurology Date: 2010-11-09 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: B Winblad; K Palmer; M Kivipelto; V Jelic; L Fratiglioni; L-O Wahlund; A Nordberg; L Bäckman; M Albert; O Almkvist; H Arai; H Basun; K Blennow; M de Leon; C DeCarli; T Erkinjuntti; E Giacobini; C Graff; J Hardy; C Jack; A Jorm; K Ritchie; C van Duijn; P Visser; R C Petersen Journal: J Intern Med Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 8.989
Authors: Tamara G Fong; Michael A Fearing; Richard N Jones; Peilin Shi; Edward R Marcantonio; James L Rudolph; Frances M Yang; Dan K Kiely; Sharon K Inouye Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2009-07-31 Impact factor: 21.566
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: Daniel O Clark; Huiping Xu; Lyndsi Moser; Philip Adeoye; Annie W Lin; Christy C Tangney; Shannon L Risacher; Andrew J Saykin; Robert V Considine; Frederick W Unverzagt Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2019-07-18 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: David R Roalf; Madelyn J Moberg; Bruce I Turetsky; Laura Brennan; Sushila Kabadi; David A Wolk; Paul J Moberg Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2016-12-30 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Ondrej Bezdicek; Markéta Červenková; Tyler M Moore; Hana Stepankova Georgi; Zdenek Sulc; David A Wolk; Daniel A Weintraub; Paul J Moberg; Robert Jech; Miloslav Kopecek; David R Roalf Journal: Assessment Date: 2018-06-21
Authors: Jie J Pan; Michelle Lee; Lawrence S Honig; Jean-Paul G Vonsattel; Phyllis L Faust; Elan D Louis Journal: Parkinsonism Relat Disord Date: 2014-03-12 Impact factor: 4.891
Authors: Stephen T Moelter; Megan A Glenn; Sharon X Xie; Jesse Chittams; Christopher M Clark; Marianne Watson; Steven E Arnold Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2015 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: David R Roalf; Megan Quarmley; Dawn Mechanic-Hamilton; David A Wolk; Steven E Arnold; Paul J Moberg Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2016-08-10 Impact factor: 4.472